# Ethical question



## TimV (Mar 2, 2005)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7048957/




> In a case that highlights the clash of religious beliefs and legal responsibilities for medical professionals, a judge recommended Monday that the state reprimand and limit the license of a pharmacist who refused to refill a young woman's prescription for oral contraceptives.



Someone asked me on another forum what I thought of this. I am not totally certain, but I answered



> From a Christian viewpoint, there are for instance laws in the OT that prohibit eating things like road kill (if you find an animal torn by wild beasts while walking you can't eat it). But the same law says you can sell it to someone of another religion. The point is that there is a limited responsibility in projecting your moral standards on to other people.



I'm not set in stone, though. What do you all think?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 2, 2005)

I think artificial birth control is sinful (in opposition to the Sixth Commandment), and therefore aiding and abetting in the process is also sinful. The state has acted contrary to its God-given mandate to uphold life and liberty in this instance.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> I think artificial birth control is sinful (in opposition to the Sixth Commandment), and therefore aiding and abetting in the process is also sinful. The state has acted contrary to its God-given mandate to uphold life and liberty in this instance.



Andrew,
I agree with your statement. Question; Do you _agree_ with birth control that is not 'artificial'?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 2, 2005)

I was careful to use the word 'artificial,' because it involves an extraordinary step to thwart the natural process of procreation. 

Regarding so-called 'natural family planning,' or just plain ol' celibacy or abstention within marriage, that involves motives of the heart that I would not presume to judge. There are also medical concerns that I would not necessarily wish to address here. However, the natural goal for individuals not called to celibacy -- which I see as _very_ extraordinary -- should be marriage and marriages should normally (barring infertility) produce children. 

The WCF says it well (chap. 24): 



> II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness.



I would also commend most historic Reformed commentaries on Genesis 38.8, as well as Charles Provan's book _The Bible and Birth Control_.

As to the issue at hand, a pharmacist with religious convictions about birth control should not be penalized by the state for adhering to those convictions and wishing to refrain from involvement in the sins of others.


----------



## lwadkins (Mar 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Now lets see, where is that smiley for "loaded question".


----------



## TimV (Mar 2, 2005)

I think Scott may have got you, Andrew. But in any event, I will push this, since you are a learned young man.



> I think artificial birth control is sinful (in opposition to the Sixth Commandment), and therefore aiding and abetting in the process is also sinful.



Well, as to my quoting of what I (kinda) see as case law, eating road kill is clearly sinful for Israel, but it is not evil for Israelites to aid and abet the eating of road kill, right?



> The state has acted contrary to its God-given mandate to uphold life and liberty in this instance.



The state should keep it's nose out of 99% of the business it's nose is in, but that's another subject!!! 

Very best
Tim


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> Well, as to my quoting of what I (kinda) see as case law, eating road kill is clearly sinful for Israel, but it is not evil for Israelites to aid and abet the eating of road kill, right?



I guess I'd have to look closely at the specific verses you are referring to on the question of roadkill -- which is a matter of ceremonial law, if I'm not mistaken, but I base my particular objection to aiding and abetting in the use of artifical contraceptives on the Sixth Commandment, ie., God's moral law, which prohibits not only direct but complicit assaults against human life (handing a weapon to someone who you know is going to use it for evil is sin; it makes one an accessory before the fact in legal parlance). It was only in the 1960's that the US legalized contraception because society previously recognized that this was a crime against "nature." Forty years ago, then, this pharmacist would be upholding the law by refusing to give a woman the means to end her pregnancy. Regardless of society's changing mores, God's moral law endures. 



> Question 134: Which is the sixth commandment?
> 
> Answer: The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.
> 
> ...





[Edited on 3-3-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Peter (Mar 2, 2005)

Tim, this is how I see it: The law not to eat "road kill" was ceremonial. It was part of the Jewish system of ritual cleanliness. The substance behind these ceremonial laws was that Israel was to be seperate from the unclean heathens around her. For an Israelite to sell road kill to a heathen outside the covenant community would not violate this principle b/c the point of the command not to eat it was to mark a distinction btween him and the heathens that do. However, if birth control is sinful it is inherently so (6th commandment) and so I think your analogy is a bad one. Not only that but consider the conclusions such reasoning might follow from - is it justifiable to sell a gun to a man you know will murder with it?


----------



## TimV (Mar 2, 2005)

Thanks Peter, you and Andrew reason well. But I must say that I think the difference between "ceremonial" and "moral" are both silly and artificial. I'll give examples tomorrow, but it's getting late. 

My very best regards to you both.

Tim (with 7 kids)


----------



## larryjf (Mar 2, 2005)

As far as i know the pharmacist only knows what medicine has been ordered, and not the condition that is being treated.

I believe a pharmacist who denies everyone birth control without knowing why they are taking it is being presumptuous.

My sister-in-law has to take birth control because she has hormonal problems. The birth control does not inhibit her from becoming pregnant and having children.


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2005)

OK then. Was God arbitrary with His laws? Why would a ban on ostrich meat be ceremonial and quail meat not? 

Can you concede that many of those laws were for good, logical reasons of health?

Or, alternatively, if birth control is immoral as you say, and we can't aid and abet someone practicing birth control as you say, should the church get involved in disciplining members who practice birth control?


----------



## crhoades (Mar 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> Or, alternatively, if birth control is immoral as you say, and we can't aid and abet someone practicing birth control as you say, should the church get involved in disciplining members who practice birth control?



I would like to see some discussion on this point. Thinking through the abortion issue over the last few months have led me to this conclusion as well. Pragmatically speaking, this wouldn't fly in most congregations. I would see it having to be taught and explained. 

So I guess I have a two-fold question: 1. Should it be taught and admonished with views to discipline? 2. How would a pastor/session graciously bring this to pass?


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2005)

I was actually being rhetorical. I can't imagine a session of mature men doing anything along those lines. There are a thousand medical reasons why some women at some time need birth control, and to say that it's wrong would need a much better set of proofs than have been offered.

Although having said that, there should be much more coming from the pulpit about the joys and obligations of parenthood. In our, mostly young college kid church I find myself bitting my toung half the time as there are so many newly wedded kids who both stay working, and smilingly tell you that "Maybe next year we will start a family".


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2005)

I was actually being rhetorical. I can't imagine a session of mature men doing anything along those lines. There are a thousand medical reasons why some women at some time need birth control, and to say that it's wrong would need a much better set of proofs than have been offered.

Although having said that, there should be much more coming from the pulpit about the joys and obligations of parenthood. In our, mostly young college kid church I find myself bitting my toung half the time as there are so many newly wedded kids who both stay working, and smilingly tell you that "Maybe next year we will start a family".


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> OK then. Was God arbitrary with His laws? Why would a ban on ostrich meat be ceremonial and quail meat not?
> 
> Can you concede that many of those laws were for good, logical reasons of health?



Although this seems to be getting off track a bit, I am content (and have said in this a previous thread on the subject) to say that the dietary laws were ceremonial and abrograted by the Lord Jesus Christ. God is not arbitrary; they had a purpose as with all the ceremonial laws which was fulfilled in Him and are no longer binding upon believers (see Acts 10.15). Gary North critiqued Rushdoony well on this subject: 

http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/html/gnbd/Chapter21.htm



> Or, alternatively, if birth control is immoral as you say, and we can't aid and abet someone practicing birth control as you say, should the church get involved in disciplining members who practice birth control?



The Puritans did in fact exercise church discipline for the practice of birth control. And I believe they were right to do so. It was not until the 20th century that _any_ Protestant denomination rescinded its prohibition of this activity. 

It is a subject that should be addressed from the pulpit with compassion, speaking the truth in love.


----------



## crhoades (Mar 3, 2005)

Andrew,

Do you think Protestant's are knee jerking against Roman Catholicism on this one? Before studying the issue, I just thought it was the RC's overreaching into a family's life. Now I agree with you on the 6th commandment prohibition (In the case of family planning - not sure about the hormonal regulation side of things...)


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Andrew,
> 
> Do you think Protestant's are knee jerking against Roman Catholicism on this one? Before studying the issue, I just thought it was the RC's overreaching into a family's life. Now I agree with you on the 6th commandment prohibition (In the case of family planning - not sure about the hormonal regulation side of things...)



I know that most people see the Roman Catholic Church as the only witness against birth control. But historically this is an issue that Protestants and Catholics have been united on, even going back to the early Church. It's only in the 20th century that Protestants have departed from the historic opposition to birth control. As for why Protestants have taken that route, I'm not sure of the answer. The departure began officially in 1930 in the Episcopal Church. I suspect Margaret Sanger's views made inroads on the mainline Protestant denominations. Cultural influences such as financial pressures for women to work outside the home probably also played a part in the decline. In any case, the historic Protestant witness has been contra birth control, although the RCC would like to take the credit. I did visit a RCC site once that acknowledged opposition to birth control in the early and Reformed Protestant Churches prior to the modern age, which I thought was quite decent of them. 

http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

Here's an article from a non-Christian perspective on birth control which also says the same thing: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control#Protestant_Christianity


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by larryjf_
> As far as i know the pharmacist only knows what medicine has been ordered, and not the condition that is being treated.
> 
> I believe a pharmacist who denies everyone birth control without knowing why they are taking it is being presumptuous.
> ...



Actually, the reasoning of giving pills for hormonal problems is not legit. I've had those problems and have known many others that have also. In some cases it makes it worse. In others it just covers up a bigger problem (and makes it worse)...like endometriosis. It can cause infertility. And if she is sexually active it is abortifactant. It is "supposed" to suppress ovulation, but that rarely happens. Instead it also changes the lining of the uterus to not allow the concieved child to be able to attach to the wall of the uterus, thus automatically causing miscarriage...so early on that it isn't usually noticed.

I've been there...I'll never go there again.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 3, 2005)

We're on board with you and your wife, Andrew! 

as far as a "loaded" smiliee...how about a revolver? Sorry, was raised with guns in the house.

[Edited on 3-3-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## AdamM (Mar 3, 2005)

To add a different viewpoint on the subject, I have copied and pasted below a paper written by Dr. John Fesko on the subject. Dr. Fesko is an OPC pastor (a member of the committee preparing the OPC "New Perspectives" report) and an RTS Atlanta systematics professor. 

http://www.genevaopc.org/resources_html.asp?res_id=33



> By J. V. Fesko
> Â© 2004 All Rights Reserved
> 
> Who fulfills the dominion mandate?
> ...



[Edited on 3-3-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 3, 2005)

No, we cannot "make Christians"...however that is a side issue to the fact that artificial birthcontrol goes contrary to what God has created, endorses moral relativism, encourages increasing promiscuity, is self destructive (the effects is has against ones own body), and causes one to participate in the murder of their own unborn (abortifactant, regardless of whether one is aware of the conceived child or not).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Mar 3, 2005)

I disagree w/ the statement, "we cannot make Christians". We are called to _make_ disciples:

Mat 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 

Regeneration is of the Lord. However, we are called to procreate and fill our quiver, and rear those children, i.e. make them disciples, and by baptising them, they are Christian.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 3, 2005)

I agreed with it only from the point that we cannot presume our children's election. But I do believe that there is a promise and a blessing from filling our quiver and filling the earth. Imagine non christians limiting their # and christians mass producing. The effects it can have. However, it is not for the purpose of "outnumbering our enemies" as the article adam posted states. It is simply in obedience as we do not know the future of our children. However, mayhaps that ends up being one of the many blessings of having our children.

Simply put, we should not go contrary to God's law.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I agreed with it only from the point that we cannot presume our children's election. But I do believe that there is a promise and a blessing from filling our quiver and filling the earth. Imagine non christians limiting their # and christians mass producing. The effects it can have. However, it is not for the purpose of "outnumbering our enemies" as the article adam posted states. It is simply in obedience as we do not know the future of our children. However, mayhaps that ends up being one of the many blessings of having our children.
> 
> Simply put, we should not go contrary to God's law.


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2005)

I've always thought it ironic that people who reject clear cut examples of God's law are so insistant on laying burdens on people that aren't clearly Biblical. God says not to eat lobster, no ifs ands or butts, but they chuck it off as "ceremonial" (it's too cool to pick and choose) but they demand something like no artificial birth control, and can't even come close to finding anything resembling a Biblical command against it.

Usually, after a few kids, they change their theology.

BTW one of the reasons for the Biblical law demanding a waiting period before sex after the birth of a child is to keep the woman from getting pregnant.

We never used anything until after our sixth child, and when it was clear that another baby could have killed my wife, after getting good medical council, we desided to wait for the seventh, then after the seventh there were major problems, we decided to stop after much thinking and good council.

Kids are a joy, and people are foolish to postpone having them, and to let worries like money affect their thinking. But be careful about putting yokes around the necks of other people, unless you are willing to take responsibility for what happens to them.


----------



## AdamM (Mar 3, 2005)

> No, we cannot "make Christians"...however that is a side issue to the fact that artificial birthcontrol goes contrary to what God has created, endorses moral relativism, encourages increasing promiscuity, is self destructive (the effects is has against ones own body), and causes one to participate in the murder of their own unborn (abortifactant, regardless of whether one is aware of the conceived child or not).



Leaving out the abortifactant issue (since there are alternative methods,) I'm curious why you distinguish between artificial and natural birth control? That appears to me to be a distinction without substance. It seems to me that the consistent position would need to be against all birth control in principle, since argument over methods (artificial verses natural) concedes the key point in the debate from the start. 

Would it ever be ok for a husband and wife to engage in sexual relations for purposes other then procreation? 

Also, do you interpret the dominion mandate then as **requiring** that a Christian couple take every action they can to have as many children as possible and that to not do so is a sin?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> I've always thought it ironic that people who reject clear cut examples of God's law are so insistant on laying burdens on people that aren't clearly Biblical. God says not to eat lobster, no ifs ands or butts, but they chuck it off as "ceremonial" (it's too cool to pick and choose) but they demand something like no artificial birth control, and can't even come close to finding anything resembling a Biblical command against it.



 With all due respect, Tim, I believe you have it exactly backwards. The dietary laws are abrograted (I showed this from Acts 10.15) and the Sixth Commandment is binding today and does apply to artificial birth control. Legalism is binding the consciences where God has not, and the dietary laws are not in force while the Sixth Commandment is, so it seems to me that your position is the one that lays a heavy burden on believers that God has not. You have not interacted at all with the sources I have cited on either count. That is what I find ironic.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 3, 2005)

1) Tim, I have five children and know ppl with up to 19

2) There are other ways of preventing a pregnancy other than chemicals

3) We are distinguishing between artificial bc and natural bc due to the artical in question. The pharmacist refused to fill a prescript that is abortifactant.

4) there are ppl that are not against BC, but are against abortion and are aware of the dangers with chemical and surgical BC.

5) Tim, we are not shoving a yoke on others. I wear a covering, I don't shove it on others either. We are stating standards for our families and why. I also know those that eat kosher-like. Granted I love lobster, but I can understand the practical reasons why a person shouldn't eat it (no, I don't eat kosher-like anymore, but I understand the mindset). Also, as stated, those were ceremonial and practical laws, different than an outright command to be fruitful and multiply, to accept children, and to not commit murder (through abortifactants). I also happen to know many couples that still follow the laws that relate towards relations and the birth of a child. But you will also note other laws dealing with relations that actually place you at the typical time of ovulation, thus increasing chance of pregnancy,

6) Also count the blessings mentioned in scripture of having many children.

7) Adam, no, most ppl (even those with large families) do not have relations JUST for the purpose of procreation. It's an enjoyment and the procreation just tends to be an added blessing from it.

I understand the issues with your wife. Obviously her body is not able to handle it...there are couple who insist on trying for children regardless...but in this case this is where natural BC, abstinence, or etc come in out of courtesy for her and safety for her life.

[Edited on 3-4-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2005)

> 2) There are other ways of preventing a pregnancy other than chemicals



But as Adam pointed out, you've given away the main point.

Andrew, I've read sources like you gave for 30 years. As a highschooler I was influenced by the World Wide Church of God, so I know the issues inside and sideways.

If there is a Scripture that prohibits birth control, let's see it, and not an extrapolation.

Do you not see that if I can find a case of an unclean food that tends against the health of a person *I* can use is as a violation against the command against murder?

Besides, you've not yet heard what I think about unclean food. My position is typical of theonomists. Basically it is that it's YOUR personal business, but not good advice. Mark Rushdoony married a girl from the midwest, and when they visit the inlaws, and are served ham, they eat it. No one with any standing says eating shark meat should be preached against from the pulpit. And NEVER have I heard anyone preach against birth control in the reconstruction movement, although it's widely accepted that large families are a blessing (like mine).

My very best regards to you!!!! And thanks for being frank!!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 4) there are ppl that are not against BC, but are against abortion and are aware of the dangers with chemical and surgical BC.
> 
> ...



I apologize if you took what I said offensively. There are ppl that vary on this issue in many ways. Just as you see it wrong to shove a NO BC on others, isn't it also wrong to say that a person CAN"T have a NO BC stand for their family? This was not meant to become personal...believe me, I've taken it personally in the past, so I understand.
Also, eating lobster won't kill a baby, therefore not murder...chemical BC will, therefore murder.


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2005)

> Just as you see it wrong to shove a NO BC on others, isn't it also wrong to say that a person CAN"T have a NO BC stand for their family?



Yes, and I clearly said that it is a choice for the family! Be my guest if you want to be NO BC, as long as you don't demand it, or say otherwise is a sin from the pulpit.

As I said, after a couple kids, the hard core types usually change their theology.

Thanks for your courtesy, and there were no hard feelings.


----------



## satz (Mar 3, 2005)

I've been following this thread and must confess i am a little confused here.

1. What is the difference between artifical and natural BC? I assume things like abstinence and the rhythm method call under natural...what about things like condoms?

2. Also, those here who oppose BC, what exactly is the issue. Is it the fact that artifical BC causes abortions and could hence be classed as murder or is it the general idea of deciding to limit the number of children you have? Would you have a problem with a couple using natural BC to stop at 2, 3 or whatever other arbitary number?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> Andrew, I've read sources like you gave for 30 years. As a highschooler I was influenced by the World Wide Church of God, so I know the issues inside and sideways.
> 
> If there is a Scripture that prohibits birth control, let's see it, and not an extrapolation.
> ...



Tim,

In the interests of clarification, perhaps you could specify what it is exactly that you believe regarding dietary laws. Do you hold to R.J. Rushdoony's view as cited in the Gary North article that I referenced earlier? 

The fact is the dietary laws are not about health but as Peter said about ritual cleanness and separation from pagan nations. Acts 10 specifically overrules the dietary restrictions for believers today. People are free to choose whether to eat lobster or not. The key to addressing the lawfulness of eating practices is as you suggested found in the Sixth Commandment (as I cited earlier in the thread) which prohibits immoderation in eating, etc. That applies to any kind of food, not just shellfish, et al. Gary North the theonomist teaches exactly what I am saying here. I am opposed to theonomy emphatically but most theonomists I know acknowledge a distinction between the ceremonial and moral law (as taught by the Westminster Confession), and concur that the dietary laws are part of the former and thus abrogated. 

As for Scriptures that teach the unlawfulness of birth control, many have already been adduced in this thread. You may disagree with the hermeneutic of "good and necessary consequence" but that is the same hermeneutic that teaches the doctrine of the Trinity (no where stated directly but properly inferred). 

However, to make it very plain the Sixth Commandment requires that we do those things which promote life and prohibits whatsoever tends towards the destruction or prevention of life. The Seventh Commandment requires marriage and chaste conjugal relations for those without the gift of continency (nearly everyone, in my view) which naturally and normally leads to children. And Genesis 38.9-10 teaches quite directly that birth control -- known for eons as the sin of "Onanism" is sinful and incurs God's wrath. _Every_ Protestant commentator on that passage up until the 20th century has argued against birth control specifically on those grounds. Thus, the Scriptures teach the unlawfulness of birth control plainly.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 3, 2005)

Seeing as I am female, not much chance of me preaching ANYTHING from the pulpit .


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2005)

You're a gem, Colleen!


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2005)

Andrew, I have probably ten times as much personal information about the differences between Rush and his son in law as anyone you've ever met, but for now all I'll say is that after GNs heart attack, he stopped (as far as I know) mocking his sushi type dinners as "the Chalcedon diet".

We'll have to start a new thread.

my very best
Tim


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> You're a gem, Colleen!



Thank you...an emerald or a pearl, I hope...


----------



## TimV (Mar 3, 2005)

No, silly, a ruby!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 3, 2005)




----------



## TimV (Mar 4, 2005)

As I said, later we can start a thread which deals with things like whether or not certain dietary laws were given for health.

As to the sin of onanism, you will have to re-read the passage from Genesis 38:9 again.

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.

It had to do with inheritance, not with birth control. Onan had a clear Biblical duty to raise up heirs to his brother, a duty that was vital to the brother's family.

Do you take this as a sin having an orgasim under any conditions other than to get your wife pregnant? What is, to your mind, the sin that Onan committed? And out of curiosity, did your brother have a wife, and if so, do you feel any obligation to act the way Onan was supposed to act?

Your refering to the 6th commandment as a prohibition against birth control is chaotic, because it could be used to say that NOT using BC is a sin under a thousand medical conditions.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> As I said, later we can start a thread which deals with things like whether or not certain dietary laws were given for health.



Ok. 



> As to the sin of onanism, you will have to re-read the passage from Genesis 38:9 again.
> 
> 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.
> 
> It had to do with inheritance, not with birth control. Onan had a clear Biblical duty to raise up heirs to his brother, a duty that was vital to the brother's family.



The penalty for failure to do one's duty with respect to raising up heirs was not death, but God punished Onan with death. Why? Because his crime was _coitus interruptus_ -- ie., birth control. This shows how displeased God is with such conduct. 

See this article for further exegesis: http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/birthcontrol.html



> Do you take this as a sin having an orgasim under any conditions other than to get your wife pregnant? What is, to your mind, the sin that Onan committed? And out of curiosity, did your brother have a wife, and if so, do you feel any obligation to act the way Onan was supposed to act?



I have already identified the sin of Onan as that of birth control. That's why Onanism (a word in the dictionary) has historically been the term used to describe _coitus interruptus_. The etymology of the word itself is well known. 

I'm not going to discuss my brother in this context, but I have already stated that Jewish ceremonial laws were abrogated. 



> Your refering to the 6th commandment as a prohibition against birth control is chaotic, because it could be used to say that NOT using BC is a sin under a thousand medical conditions.



I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by this.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 4, 2005)

I think he is refering to one of two things Andrew...either a sin because it could endanger the possible-mother-to-be's life...or some (I disagree with this one totally) believe that it is "murder" to prevent life in the altogether.


----------



## TimV (Mar 4, 2005)

"I have already identified the sin of Onan as that of birth control."

Yes, we know this, and all agree. But to me it is a case of sets and subsets. In this case, he was required by law and custom to raise up children for his brother's estate.

The Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed, it starts small, and gets bigger, and that includes advances in theology. If I didn't love the Puritan books that I own, I would be here or at the church I'm attending, but they were products of their time. I have Trapp's 6 book commentary on the Bible, and the other day I read from his Romans 11 section that when a Jew dies, they kidnap a Christian, and baptise the dead Jew with the blood of the Christian that they've murdered to make sure the Jew gets into heaven.

Your proof texts seem to be the sixth Commandment, which you extrapolate from here to next Tuesday to support your point, and one case in the Old Testament where a man refused to get his brother's widow pregnant.

Sorry, but that's not enough.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 4, 2005)

Be fruitful and multiply doesn't count?

The blessings listed to doing so doesn't lead one towards the conclusion of doing that which is good and right according to that which God has ordered?

[Edited on 3-4-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## TimV (Mar 4, 2005)

No, be fruitful and multiply doesn't count because it's too general. It would be a good way for the more aware of us to teach young couples that they shouldn't wait to have families, though.


----------



## AdamM (Mar 4, 2005)

I think the big issue here is the danger of fundamentalism. The Reformed faith affirms the fundamentals (in-errancy, substations atonement, bodily resurrection & etc.) but is strongly opposed to fundamentalism. Fundamentalism seeks to elevate well intentioned extra-biblical rules to the status of law in order to accomplish what some believe are worthy outcomes (and they really may be genuinely good outcomes.) The problem with this approach as Dr. Fesko points out in the article linked below is that it denies the sufficiency of scripture and is opposed to Christian Liberty, one of the key principles of the Reformation. 

http://www.genevaopc.org/resources_html.asp?res_id=14 

*Of course this is not to say that individuals can´t have their own convictions about these matters and practice accordingly. * If folks desire to not use birth control thinking that is most pleasing to God "“ great! May God bless your choice and nobody should give that family any grief about it and vice versa. What we ought never, never do is bind the conscience of our Brother or Sister based upon our personal preference where God has left them free. 

As far as the specific issue of birth control goes, I think Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason takes a balanced approach in the article below:



> Gregory Koukl
> What is God's will regarding the use of birth control? Does the Bible make a definitive statement?
> 
> We've been talking about the Reformer's view of birth control and I got to wondering, what kind of birth control did Reformers have? They didn't have pills or diaphragms or spermicide jellies or condoms or anything like that. So what could they be against? Maybe coitus interruptus. That's what was apparently condemned in Genesis 38, which, by the way, I think it's worthwhile to make a couple more points about. There was a comment made by the last caller that was revelatory, though he withdrew it. Let me draw your attention to it for a moment.
> ...



http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/ethics/birthco.htm


----------



## TimV (Mar 4, 2005)

Thanks, Adam. I think the article good, although




> Yet not a single mention is made of coitus interruptus.



Isn't quite true using the broader (historical) definition. There is the case of having to go through a cleaning ritual after spilling seed when a man is by himself.

Also, I do feel strongly that the modern Western Christian family is very weak in the area of "multiplying" and the article could perhaps have emphasised God's revealed will to have (normally) large families.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 4, 2005)

Tim,

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. The Scriptural teaching against birth control is just as clear, in my view, as that on abortion, and the two issues are both related to the Sixth Commandment. Genesis 38.9-10 is clearly about birth control, and though you may disagree, the Christian Church historically has taught this very thing. 

Adam,

I disagree with your characterization that opposition to birth control is fundamentalistic. Calvin, Luther, Henry, Wesley, Augustine and every major Reformed and Protestant theologian prior to the 20th century have taught that contraception is sinful. I have a hard time thinking of them as fundamentalists. It has been in fact the universal consensus teaching of the Christian Church until quite recently. The proper way to frame this discussion is not "Christian liberty v. fundamentalism" but rather "is contraception consistent with the Sixth Commandment duty to uphold and promote life?" Answer: No.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 4, 2005)

Adam, 

On your points of fundamentalism, I believe you do not understand the fundamentalist. Fundamentalism does not equal legalism. Legalism "turns things into law to cause what some believe are worthy outcome". Fundamentalism simply seeks to obey without excuse...take it from one who knows, has been both, and in many ways still is a fundamentalist.

I do not believe discussing this or holding this standard for our families or encouraging it in other Christians is "binding the conscience" (your polite way of saying "forcing it down their throats"). If they are convicted about it...then there is nothing wrong in that as long as it is scripturally and historically based.

As far as the Puritans and BC...they did have forms of it. In fact, it has been around for most of history. The Egyptian women wrapped croc dung in leaves (suppository like) and that keep them (in some chemical form) from getting pregnant. Condoms were around at the time of the Pilgrims and Puritans, most of them chose not to use them...you just won't find items written on it as it wasn't modest to discuss it publically and most concured that is was against God to use it as it went against the natural laws God put in place. It was also mainly related to and used for prostitution. Those are only two examples. Look into Jewish (Biblical times and onward) thought of the subject. To use BC was considered the same as rejecting children/ rejecting human life/ murder. Just something to consider from the cultural context of the scriptures, whether you abhore Judaic culture or not. (Just qualifying it as some ppl want to throw out anything that even has the word Jewish attached to it)

The article states:
All of the other arguments that I've heard so far that are philosophical arguments that may have some weight--arguments from natural law, or the arguments from the nature of the soul and its creation--all of those arguments have not struck me as compelling at all and are seriously compromised. In other words, they could be right, but they certainly aren't compelling. They don't require us to adopt this position. So I think it's a jump ball, and if you have convictions about it, you follow your convictions. If you feel it's wrong, then don't do it. That certainly is a good New Testament principle. But if you don't feel it's wrong, it strikes me that this is an area of Christian liberty that we ought to allow our brothers and sisters in Christ to exercise in this area.

Given that artificial BC affects the commandent of Thou Shalt Not Murder, this is why we CAN be adament on this subject...and yet allow discussion and disagreement on the natural BC...(at least for me at this point)

[Edited on 3-4-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 4, 2005)

Andrew, could you provide me with the Reformers writings on the issue, please?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Andrew, could you provide me with the Reformers writings on the issue, please?



Here are some quotes from Church Fathers, Reformers and others. The best place to go for such documentation, in my opinion, is Charles Provan's book _The Bible and Birth Control_.

http://www.omsoul.com/item193.html



> In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted" (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).
> 
> Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that "on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered" (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12).
> 
> ...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 4, 2005)

Additionally, here is a "birth control quiz":

A BIRTH CONTROL QUIZ

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Church Synod issued a Bible commentary which stated that contraception was the same as abortion? 

What theologian declared in the 1500's that birth control was the murder of future persons? 

What priest in the 1700's declared that taking "preventative measures" was unnatural and would destroy the souls of those who practiced it? 

Who declared that birth control was sodomy? 

What church group ruled in the 1600's that a church official found guilty of birth control was no longer allowed to hold his position? 

What well known theologian said, "We do not believe in what is termed 'birth control' "? 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If you think that the above statements were made by Roman Catholics, then your quiz score is "Zero."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The answers are: 

The Synod of Dort; 

John Calvin; 

John Wesley;

Martin Luther;

The Pilgrims;

Arthur W. Pink.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 4, 2005)

Excellent, altach (thank you)! I had no idea there was all this written. Hubby will be interested. The Natural BC has been an issue we have struggled with, simply due to circumstances and at times fear of family. 

The situations mentioned by those men sound alot like today's ppl....Christian and non-Christian alike.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 4, 2005)

And here's an expanded list of quotations by Christian theologians: 

http://www.valerieslivingbooks.com/history.htm


----------



## TimV (Mar 4, 2005)

Well good. There are a ton of quotes on that site. And as typical of this type of bad rhetoric, many of the quotes don't have anthing to do with the subject. Whether the author of the site was being tricky or is just not aware of historic standards of debate is unclear. 

Example. From Augustine

"For what gratification is there (except perhaps for lascivious persons, and those who, as the apostle says with prohibition, "possess their vessel in the lust of concupiscence") in the mere shedding of seed as the ultimate pleasure of sexual union, unless it is followed by the true and proper fruit of marriage--conception and birth?"

Augustine had a hang up, a big one. He had a common law wife, who he, after he converted to Christianity, kicked her out of the house. He loved her, and said that losing her was traumatic, but since his view of sex was perverted by the times he lived in he didn't DO THE RIGHT THING and marry her.

So of course it stands to reason that he would say something stupid and perverted when it came to sex. A child of 12 can see that this quote shows a twisted view of the material world. Sex can be totally beautiful and holy 1 month after the woman is pregnant, and the seed isn't "waisted" even if it is JUST TO GRATIFY ONE SENSUALLY.


----------



## TimV (Mar 4, 2005)

Andrew, did you even read through this garbage before you posted it?

"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. "

Do you not understand what this fool is saying?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 4, 2005)

Tim, 

I'm not going to defend a quote that refers to "penance," but neither am I going to continue discussing this issue with you in light of your hostile and condescending manner, and your failure to address the numerous Scriptural and historical arguments against contraception.


----------



## TimV (Mar 4, 2005)

I see. So you have no problem with the woman being called a murderer? If you were in a position of authority in your church, would you start the process of excommunication of any members who for one reason or another practice BC, on the charge of murder?

[Edited on 3-4-2005 by TimV]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 4, 2005)

Tim, do you believe that life begins at conception? (I'm sure you do)

What is it when a woman intentionally takes something (or someone gives her something) that causes her to expel (miscarry, abort) a conceived life (a child)?

Tim, I'm guilty of this myself. At the time I was partially ignorant of what the pill did and I was pressured. However, ignorance is no excuse...I do believe, from symptoms I had, that I miscarried several children due to the pill...I am still held responsible to having caused their deaths. Later I was told that I could not have children...the Lord was gracious and granted us five children. I believe the penance above to be changed to "repentance"...a change of heart.


----------



## TimV (Mar 4, 2005)

> Tim, do you believe that life begins at conception? (I'm sure you do)



That has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is whether a man and wife are guilty of the sin of murder for using birth control. And it is absolutely ludicrous. Especially this "potential" theory, that somehow not bringing hypothetical souls into the world will send you to hell for eternity, as if we humans had that sort of power. Strange.

Probably 90 percent or more of everyone on this board and in your church are being called murderers on this thread.

And those quotes about "waisting seed" for having acceiving climax for any other reason that procreation is cultish.

The only thing I know about Provan was when I was studying a certain aspect of WW2 warcrimes, and he went from one extreme to the other about whether people were gassed at a certain installation at Auschwitz. I'll plan on reading some of his works on that to get an insight into his thinking.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 4, 2005)

You are putting words into ppl's mouths.

It is not neccessary that it be ONLY for procreation. 

My issue is that most forms of artificial birth control (ie chemical and IUD) does indeed "murder" a child.

THAT is NOT cultish...it is a fact. Do you know what abortifactant means? (rhetorical question, answer not needed) This whole thread started with a man being punished because he refused to give out a drug that is intended to and known to eliminate pregnancy...notice, it ELIMINATES it...NOT Prevents it.


----------



## TimV (Mar 4, 2005)

> My issue is that most forms of artificial birth control (ie chemical and IUD) does indeed "murder" a child.



Your use of the word "most" shows that you do not understand the issue at all. Not in any way, shape or form. I am not putting words into anyone's mouths, and I will prove it.

Read this carefully, and tell us what you think of it



> "Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. "



If my wife's tubes are tied, then she cannot get pregnant. Period. She does nothing to kill a child. If you think differently, please tell me, but be logical. We have never lost a child, like you think you have. Nor have we kept these hypothetical souls from being born, like people ignorant of the very basics of our faith may say.

This is getting stupid. If you feel like giving up your BC do it. But I will not be judged by anyone with less than seven kids, that's for sure, and not by someone like Provan, who had his kids run under dangerous Polish concentration sites to look for holes (where he was too fat and/or cowardly to look himself) where HCN was said by a mad man who killed himself to have been inserted.

If anyone want's the session of his church to start the process of censure for those why practise birth control, they should do it. But when they are showed to be fanatics, don't let them say I didn't warn them.

And to those who call 90 percent of the people on this board and in their churches murderers from a crazy exogeses of the sixth commandment, beware lest you be judged if you are, say, overweight.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 5, 2005)

Number one...this was a discussion, not a trial of you or your wife by myself, nor a trial of myself by you.

Number two...your wife is not using abortifactants, which was the main part of the BC issue being discussed.

Number three...I personally am against surgical procedures...however, since it is not abortifactant, I feel that that can be debated and will be debated for the next few hundred years. I might debate the pros and cons of the issue, but I'm not going to knock someone over the head for it.

Number four...I never equated sex without the intent of procreation with murder. The murder comes in with the issue of abortifactants. Two totally separate and distinct issues.

No clue who Provan is or was or whatever. However, I may only have five children, but I have been down the BCP path, I have studied both of sides of the medical issues with various types of BCs, I was a former nanny to a pharmeceutical sales representative, many family and friends that are nurses and doctors, and many personal friends who have 7-19 children. I may not have hit my forties yet, however, I am married, have dealt with both sides of this issue, and understand difficult pregnancies. I nearly died with my fourth. It wasn't the pregnancy that was the problem, instead it was an incident during delivery. I understand worry, fear, financial problems, being overwhelmed, etc.

I'm not ignorant nor being judgemental...simply debating the issue.


----------



## TimV (Mar 5, 2005)

Yes, but what about the quote I asked you to comment on?


----------



## Theological Books (Mar 5, 2005)

Well, in reading the story, I think the pharmacist was in the wrong for refusing to sell birth control to the lady. Regardless of his personal beliefs, he is in a job that demands equality and rights to be met in regulation to the laws of the state. If he doesn't want to sell birth-control devices/medication, then he should get another job.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> Well, in reading the story, I think the pharmacist was in the wrong for refusing to sell birth control to the lady. Regardless of his personal beliefs, he is in a job that demands equality and rights to be met in regulation to the laws of the state. If he doesn't want to sell birth-control devices/medication, then he should get another job.



That's the same excuse used by the Canadian Government to require Doctors to abort babies.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 5, 2005)

"most" forms....chemical and IUD
aritificial....chemical, IUD, surgical, spermicidal, barrier


As far as your other quote, she took a potion....those "potions" were known to abort. As far as the "penance" portion...consider that it is a catholic statement. If we were to use the statement from a Protestant view...then it would would read "unless she repents".

[Edited on 3-5-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## larryjf (Mar 7, 2005)

> Actually, the reasoning of giving pills for hormonal problems is not legit. I've had those problems and have known many others that have also. In some cases it makes it worse. In others it just covers up a bigger problem (and makes it worse)...like endometriosis. It can cause infertility. And if she is sexually active it is abortifactant. It is "supposed" to suppress ovulation, but that rarely happens. Instead it also changes the lining of the uterus to not allow the concieved child to be able to attach to the wall of the uterus, thus automatically causing miscarriage...so early on that it isn't usually noticed.
> 
> I've been there...I'll never go there again.


That was not the case with my sister-in-law.
She has actually had 2 healthy babies while on birth control for her hormone problem.
The therapy has helped her problem and not prohibited her from having healthy babies.
That's why i think it's unwise to just make blanket statements about this type of therapy and the usage of birth control pills without knowing specifically what it is prescribed for.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 7, 2005)

In many cases it does cover up the problem, mayhap not in your relatives case. However, that does not change the fact that it is an abortifactant...are you aware that it is possible that your relative could have miscarried and not even have known it DUE TO the abortifactant nature of the pills? Is it okay to abort to solve our hormonal issues? That is what it comes down to.


----------



## Texas Aggie (Mar 7, 2005)

The doctor writes the Rx for the drug, the pharmacist simply fills the prescription and provides it to the patient. If the pharmacist does not wish to fill the order due to moral considerations, they can refuse; however, they have to provide the recipient with a name or location of a pharmacist who will fill the order. Physicians are in the same boat. They can refuse to provide an Rx script; however, they default to the next physician.


----------



## TimV (Mar 7, 2005)

> In many cases it does cover up the problem, mayhap not in your relatives case. However, that does not change the fact that it is an abortifactant



You still don't see the issue at all. A car is an abortifactant if you hit a pregnant woman with it.


----------



## HuguenotHelpMeet (Mar 8, 2005)

[/quote]

You still don't see the issue at all. A car is an abortifactant if you hit a pregnant woman with it. [/quote]

No offense, but that argument sounds so silly to me. In the case of a car accident, you are not knowingly taking a life in most cases. If you are knowingly trying to take a life with the car, then just as in the case of artificial BC, you are breaking the 6th commandment.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> 
> You still don't see the issue at all. A car is an abortifactant if you hit a pregnant woman with it.



Actually, I probably see the issue clearer than you do. And you've just gone off into the ridiculous.

My, that would make stairs suicidal. Oh, well...I guess since it's okay to use stairs then it's okay to use cocaine also, right? (That's about how much sense you just made) 

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## TimV (Mar 8, 2005)

Larry wrote

"That was not the case with my sister-in-law.
She has actually had 2 healthy babies while on birth control for her hormone problem.
The therapy has helped her problem and not prohibited her from having healthy babies."

Colleen wrote

"However, that does not change the fact that it is an abortifactant"

Yes, Colleen, it does change the "fact". It gave her kids rather than killing them. 

Tim wrote, hoping that it would be easily understood

"You still don't see the issue at all. A car is an abortifactant if you hit a pregnant woman with it. "

Meaning that the drug Larry spoke of could in some cases be used for BC and in other cases to do the opposite, namely help have babies.

Jessica wrote

"No offense, but that argument sounds so silly to me."

Which is one difference that women don't make theologians, they tend let their emotions cloud their judgments.

Jessica also wrote

" If you are knowingly trying to take a life with the car, then just as in the case of artificial BC, you are breaking the 6th commandment. "

Which brings us back to the main issue. Is any form of BC the crime of murder?

Jessica, I take it you've read through this whole thread. So I ask you for a direct answer. Do you think that a church as the obligation to excommunicate a family for practicing any form of birth control, and on the grounds of murder?

Thanks in advance for a clear, detailed answer that doesn't drift too far off the subject.


----------



## HuguenotHelpMeet (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> 
> Jessica wrote
> 
> ...



Yes, I have been keeping up with this whole thread. Yes, I believe that most ARTIFICIAL forms of birth control are murder. This includes hormonal birth control pills and IUD. It may not be intentional murder and I believe that this is where the church needs to come in and educate families on this error and hopefully bring the family to a true understand and repentence. If a family in the church is KNOWINGLY aborting their children through these means then yes, I believe it should be addressed by the session using Matthew 18 as their guide.

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by HuguenotHelpMeet]


----------



## TimV (Mar 8, 2005)

Sigh....

Jessica you wrote



> If you are knowingly trying to take a life with the car, then just as in the case of artificial BC, you are breaking the 6th commandment.



Then, you switch to



> Yes, I believe that most ARTIFICIAL forms of birth control are murder.



Do you take back what you said in the first case? Without knowing anything whatsoever of Larry's example you lump them all together calling it murder, then you switch by saying "most". Do you not see there is a difference in what you said?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> Yes, Colleen, it does change the "fact". It gave her kids rather than killing them.



So does that mean it's IVF is also okay....I mean hey, we may throw away 3 kids, but it gave the couple the one they wanted. (I believe this is why adoption IS an option and IS IMPORTANT)



> Meaning that the drug Larry spoke of could in some cases be used for BC and in other cases to do the opposite, namely help have babies.



No, the pills have the FULL ability and INTENT of killing. Just because it "happens" to have an occasional good thing about them, doesn't change this. The outcome for the good is not predictable (occasional, rare). The outcome for the bad is (common, and purposefully put there by those who created the pill).



> Which is one difference that women don't make theologians, they tend let their emotions cloud their judgments.



Now THAT was rude....we've avoided "male-bashing" and have kept our respectful places while debating this. You however, have gone overboard here to be so sexists. We are not to be in the pulpit, that does not mean that we are not intelligient. You have also proven that YOU are highly emotional on this topic and have taken it WAY TOO personally due to your wife's situation.



> Which brings us back to the main issue. Is any form of BC the crime of murder?



Actually, this wasn't the main issue...the main issue was dealing with chemical BC. That is why I have continually separated the two. You want to lump them both with a blanket statement, saying that if one is wrong for one reason then the other is wrong for the same. That is not always the case. In the case of BC one is wrong for one reason (chemical, IUD-murder) and both could be wrong for another reason (natural, barrier, chemical, surgical-going against the order that God has instated) 

I believe my last paragraph answers your question quite clearly.

Though, as I've stated before....some ppl do consider the rejection of having children (regardless of methods used) as being equal to being murdurous.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by HuguenotHelpMeet_
> 
> Yes, I have been keeping up with this whole thread. Yes, I believe that most ARTIFICIAL forms of birth control are murder. This includes hormonal birth control pills and IUD. It may not be intentional murder and I believe that this is where the church needs to come in and educate families on this error and hopefully bring the family to a true understand and repentence. If a family in the church is KNOWINGLY aborting their children through these means then yes, I believe it should be addressed by the session using Matthew 18 as their guide.
> 
> [Edited on 3-8-2005 by HuguenotHelpMeet]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> Sigh....
> 
> Jessica you wrote
> ...



You are being nit-picky....you know which forms she was refering to and what she meant. It can't be THIS difficult for you to understand, can it?


----------



## TimV (Mar 8, 2005)

I will wait for Jessica.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 8, 2005)

Yes, I believe you will...since you obviously don't like the idea of focusing on the separate groups of BC and the DIFFERENT laws of God that they break.


----------



## TimV (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Yes, I believe you will...since you obviously don't like the idea of focusing on the separate groups of BC and the DIFFERENT laws of God that they break.



That is a different issue, and so I will answer you. Now, try to concentrate really hard, and answer specifically.

You brought up the opinion that I am letting my emotions get the better of me on this issue because of my wife's circumstances. For health reasons, after much Christian and medical advice, my wife's tubes are tied. This is the only thing you know about the situation because I've alluded to it.

Please explain to me how my wife and I are committing the sin of murder. If you do not direct the issue directly and specifically, showing the mannor in which we are breaking the sixth commandment, I will just write off your oppinions as those of an emotional woman without a disciplined mind, and treat only with other people on this subject.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 8, 2005)

You are still being quite rude and I'm sure your own wife wouldn't like to be talked to in such a manner...so why speak to me like so? I am neither ignorant or overly emotional...I happen to be upfront (though not typically aggressive) and very intelligient...I was raised in an intelligient home by highly intellectual ppl.

Neither I nor anyone else EVER stated that you and your wife were committing murder. This is where I see your emotional attachment to arguing this issue. You keep insisting that it is being said. It never was. It WAS, however, stated that there are ppl that DO believe this way...stated, just so you wouldn't be surprised if you ran into them amoungest the quiverful families. Again, however, that is not everybody. The main consensus on the OTHER BC matters is simply that they go against the order that God has created and put in place as well as his commands to be fruitful/multiply and the blessings that come with such.

I do not believe that there is any reasons (whether I be male or female) for name calling...never have I called you ignorant and when mentioning emotionalism, I qualified it to a circumstance that you have mentioned several times and keep relating to the issue yourself, not simply due to your gender.

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by LadyFlynt]

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## TimV (Mar 8, 2005)

Nice try. You wrote

"Yes, I believe you will...since you obviously don't like the idea of focusing on the separate groups of BC and the DIFFERENT laws of God that they break."

Which laws do a family break when they purposely keep eggs from being fertilized?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 8, 2005)

The main consensus on the OTHER BC matters is simply that they go against the order that God has created and put in place as well as his commands to be fruitful/multiply and the blessings that come with such.

(BTW...that was in my post above)


----------



## HuguenotHelpMeet (Mar 8, 2005)

Hi Tim. 

Oh man, I had a half written post over an hour ago when our power went out. We're having a snow storm here. I'll try to post again now.

First, as to the emotional aspect of a woman's mind, I agree that I am an emotional person, praise God for the creation of women. However, I have come to my opinion on this issue through the help of my DH, who is one of the most logically and sober minded people I know. I don't think that my opinion is one that only an emotional & theologically weak woman would have. In fact, if you read this thread from the beginning most of the quotes given supporting my beliefs were from MEN! Hmmmm....

WRT the following:




> Originally posted by TimV
> Sigh....
> 
> Jessica you wrote
> ...



If you misunderstood what I was saying by my lack of consistancy with using the word "most" then I humbly apologize. I should have said "most" in my first statement. However, please note that NEVER did I use the word "ALL".

This is a bit of a sensitive topic for women to discuss with men based on it's personal nature. So, see my face red as I type this. Yes, I do see a difference in the various types of birth control. A tubal ligation (or men's sterilization) as you mentioned does stop an egg from being fertilized. This is different then a hormonal pill or device that stops a fertilized egg from being implanted in the woman's uterus. I don't support the use of condoms, tubal ligations, men's sterilization or even NFP for the same reasons as Colleen stated but I am NOT willing to say that it would be sin for every couple if there are health issues involved. I think there are extraordinary situations where some use of BC may be necessary. However, if that use of BC is through means of ending another's life, then it should never be considered, in my opinion. Hormonal birth control pills kill conceived children...children that were fearfully and wonderfully made in God's image.

I've tried to be as clear and unemotional as possible (it's hard, being a woman!) in answering your questions. I would really appreciate it if you would answer the following question for me.

Do you believe it would be sinful (a violation of the 6th commandment) to use birth control pills or any other abortion causing birth control?

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by HuguenotHelpMeet]

[Edited on 3-8-2005 by HuguenotHelpMeet]


----------



## TimV (Mar 8, 2005)

> Do you believe it would be sinful (a violation of the 6th commandment) to use birth control pills or any other abortion causing birth control?



No, because as has been said something that in one case can cause an abortion in another doesn't necessarily cause abortion. I do believe an abortion is a violation of the sixth commandment. But your DH wasn't talking about those chemicals. He spoke of the sin of Onan. Go back and read it. It was the prevention of fertilizing an egg that he claims is a violation of the sixth commandment, right?


----------



## HuguenotHelpMeet (Mar 8, 2005)

Tim,

I do believe that the sin of Onan (BC) is a violation of the 6th commandment, even though no chemicals were used. I stated that I don't support NFP, sterilization, or the use of barrier methods and Onan's sin is what I base those beliefs on. I don't believe that Onan murdered a human life. His sin was less heinous then that of abortion but it still violated the 6th commandment, in my opinion. Onan didn't have any medical or life threatening reason, did he?

This is what John Calvin had to say in his commentary on Gen. 38



> "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."



Please don't mistake me, I'm not saying that a human soul was lost in Onan's sin. But just as we are "killing" when we have sinful anger, so are we "killing", in my opinion, when we practice (even natural) forms of BC.

What is your basis for saying that BC pills cause abortions in some and not others? How do you know that just because a woman was able to bring a child to term (praise God) while on the pill that she didn't also loose perhaps many other children before conceiving the child that lived? Colleen made an excellent point when she stated that it is very similar to that of IVF. We are against IVF, not because we don't want families to be blessed with children but because lives are lost in the process. We can't sacrifice one life for another. That is immoral.


----------



## TimV (Mar 8, 2005)

> His sin was less heinous then that of abortion but it still violated the 6th commandment, in my opinion. Onan didn't have any medical or life threatening reason, did he?



We don't know. All we know is that he didn't want to share his wealth with his brother's family as was the law and custom of the times. This is the only hint we are given in Scripture as to the reason God was angry at the guy. 

But there is enough information on this thread for the people reading to make up their minds, if they had questions before. It will be interesting to see if anyone brings it up in their Session, and if so, how far they get with it. Why don't you have Andrew try it, and report back with the results?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 8, 2005)

Unfortunately the church is too scared to go there.


----------



## HuguenotHelpMeet (Mar 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> 
> 
> > His sin was less heinous then that of abortion but it still violated the 6th commandment, in my opinion. Onan didn't have any medical or life threatening reason, did he?
> ...



Actually, my question that you answered was meant to be rhetorical. You stated the reason given for Onan's sin (not wanting to share a child (and therefore his wealth) with his brother's family. You are correct. I think we're all pretty clear that was the reason, not for any medical problems.

The questions in this paragraph were not meant to be rhetorical.



> What is your basis for saying that BC pills cause abortions in some and not others? How do you know that just because a woman was able to bring a child to term (praise God) while on the pill that she didn't also loose perhaps many other children before conceiving the child that lived? Colleen made an excellent point when she stated that it is very similar to that of IVF. We are against IVF, not because we don't want families to be blessed with children but because lives are lost in the process. We can't sacrifice one life for another. That is immoral.


----------



## larryjf (Mar 13, 2005)

> it is possible that your relative could have miscarried and not even have known it


She also may have never miscarried.
The very fact that you must make such a huge assumption to prove your point shows how weak you point is in my opinion.

By supposing that someone on the pill must always have a miscarriage is the same error the pharmicist falls into when he assumes the pill is always written for birth control, and always has something to do with abortion.

My sister-in-law was also on the pill before she was married (before she was having sex). There's no way that would have caused a miscarriage, so how could you deny someone who doesn't even have sex access to their perscription? You can't use the excuse of preventing an abortion.

Again, i think it comes down to people making decisions without having all the facts. If you know that the person is using the pill for birth control, then you have a point. But if you have no idea what the person is using it for, or even if the person is having sex - you don't have an argument.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 13, 2005)

The pharmacist cannot quiz everyone. Therefore he must err on the side of most common usage and his conscience...this should be allowed.


----------

