Birth control.

[freelance lover]

Lazarus The Resurected

freelance lover

Lazarus The Resurected

Ixor-san

I think that it has a greater purpose than one's own pleasure or procreation. It was also something that is to be a deep demonstration of a person's love for someone. It's something that is to be shared ONLY with the person you marry. It was meant to be a gift to that person when you devote your lives to each other before God.

Song of Songs probably sums that up best, methinks.

I agree on the point of it being an expression of great love. but i've never understood why that has to mean that it is only for love and not for fun as well. it feels good, i was meant to be amusing. i also have never been able to grasp the idea that you should only have sex with one person your entire life and then only after marriage, i mean, what if you mary someon who is terrible in bed? or with whom you are otherwise sexualy incompatible?

My thought process has always been that sex is something reserved for, ideally, the love of my life. Something that only he gets. Am I aware it might not work out this way? Yes, I am. But if I have two or three sexual partners through out my whole life and have loved each of them, then I doubt I look back and regret it. Personally, the idea of having sex with someone I'm not emotionally connected to turn me off. It's just not something I could do. I'm not 100% on waiting until after marriage though, I think it depends on the couple and their relationship.

And as for being sexually compatible. I also agree on the communication and compramise bit. I'd also like to add that I don't believe you have to have sex to know if you'll be sexually compatible. My boyfriend and I haven't had sex, but we are definitely both sexually compatible.

And this conversation might be better suited in the "what is marriage" thread, as that one is more about the logistics of sex.

true, this would have done well in the "what is marriage" thread but it is also relevant here as the two primay groups of people who use birth control are married couples who want to make sure they can plan ahead and budget before having a baby. and people who have extramarital sex for pleasure.

Touche wink

But hey- birth control isn't just for preventing pregnancy! BC pills my make cramps more bearable, and in general, everything better. I wonder how that factors into the equation. Probably not at all, as it's being used as a medical treatment rather than to prevent pregnancy.  

[Lazarus The Resurected]

freelance lover

Lazarus The Resurected

freelance lover

Lazarus The Resurected

Ixor-san

I think that it has a greater purpose than one's own pleasure or procreation. It was also something that is to be a deep demonstration of a person's love for someone. It's something that is to be shared ONLY with the person you marry. It was meant to be a gift to that person when you devote your lives to each other before God.

Song of Songs probably sums that up best, methinks.

I agree on the point of it being an expression of great love. but i've never understood why that has to mean that it is only for love and not for fun as well. it feels good, i was meant to be amusing. i also have never been able to grasp the idea that you should only have sex with one person your entire life and then only after marriage, i mean, what if you mary someon who is terrible in bed? or with whom you are otherwise sexualy incompatible?

My thought process has always been that sex is something reserved for, ideally, the love of my life. Something that only he gets. Am I aware it might not work out this way? Yes, I am. But if I have two or three sexual partners through out my whole life and have loved each of them, then I doubt I look back and regret it. Personally, the idea of having sex with someone I'm not emotionally connected to turn me off. It's just not something I could do. I'm not 100% on waiting until after marriage though, I think it depends on the couple and their relationship.

And as for being sexually compatible. I also agree on the communication and compramise bit. I'd also like to add that I don't believe you have to have sex to know if you'll be sexually compatible. My boyfriend and I haven't had sex, but we are definitely both sexually compatible.

And this conversation might be better suited in the "what is marriage" thread, as that one is more about the logistics of sex.

true, this would have done well in the "what is marriage" thread but it is also relevant here as the two primay groups of people who use birth control are married couples who want to make sure they can plan ahead and budget before having a baby. and people who have extramarital sex for pleasure.

Touche wink

But hey- birth control isn't just for preventing pregnancy! BC pills my make cramps more bearable, and in general, everything better. I wonder how that factors into the equation. Probably not at all, as it's being used as a medical treatment rather than to prevent pregnancy.

regular(although not excessive) masturbation can reduce the risk of prostate cancer. but i'm sure you wouldn't tell guys to start beating the bishop because it's good for them.
as for birthcontrol pills taken to reduce menstrual cramps, the morality of that would depend soley on the person that you asked. the further right leaning would probably still consider it wrong, but the far right also tends to consider an abortion preformed to save the mothers life as being wrong too. if you ask someone towards the far left they would tell you to go ahead but then that's in the area of people who want to decriminalize soft drugs. i think this issue as it realy is only vaguely discussed in the bible should be left up to the person in control of the body.  

[Priestley]

Lazarus The Resurected

i think this issue as it realy is only vaguely discussed in the bible should be left up to the person in control of the body.

You're right. The Bible does not tackle the issue with any degree of certainty.

This creates a problem. In the absence of clear commandments about contraception, those Christians who yearn for a higher authority would rather seek inferences from scripture relating to a broader/different context (e.g. sex, marriage, adultery, the time of Adam, the time of Moses, the time of Jesus) to find that authority (God's will) rather than take the initiative by judging the possible physical and moral consequences of using contraception and acting on the best judgement. This is then what is used as an argument from Christians against contraception.  

[Matt Pniewski]

As much as people will probably criticize this take, here I go:

It's not black and white. It's a matter of what is more important....

Overpopulation, abortion, ect......


Or Birth Control.


If both are sins, what is the bigger issue? And yes, I know, all sin is equal. For an individual. Fact of the matter is, step in the way of Birth Control, spew religious rhetoric about how it's a sin, it'll end up causing more problems for everyone. Last thing we need. I say, if you think it's a sin, suck it up and let it go... A greater sin than allowing and even promoting contraception is NOT doing it. Tell fellow Christians not to, but don't stand in the way.

We do not need more unwanted kids. We do not need overcrowded adoption centers. And even prochoice people agree that we do not need more abortions. Even abstinence only sex education is counterproductive.  

[`apple dumpling]

Matt Pniewski

As much as people will probably criticize this take, here I go:

It's not black and white. It's a matter of what is more important....

Overpopulation, abortion, ect......


Or Birth Control.


If both are sins, what is the bigger issue? And yes, I know, all sin is equal. For an individual. Fact of the matter is, step in the way of Birth Control, spew religious rhetoric about how it's a sin, it'll end up causing more problems for everyone. Last thing we need. I say, if you think it's a sin, suck it up and let it go... A greater sin than allowing and even promoting contraception is NOT doing it. Tell fellow Christians not to, but don't stand in the way.

We do not need more unwanted kids. We do not need overcrowded adoption centers. And even prochoice people agree that we do not need more abortions. Even abstinence only sex education is counterproductive.

I agree completely. And it's not just a matter of preventing pregnancies- it's also about preventing diseased.

Whenever I finally become sexually active- regardless of if I'm married or not at the time- I will be using at least two types of birth control to prevent an unwanted pregnancy that I would not be able to handle. Granted, I want to adopt, but that's beside the point. I think bringing a child into this world that you are unable to care for is a terrible thing to do.  

[Lazarus The Resurected]

`apple dumpling

Matt Pniewski

As much as people will probably criticize this take, here I go:

It's not black and white. It's a matter of what is more important....

Overpopulation, abortion, ect......


Or Birth Control.


If both are sins, what is the bigger issue? And yes, I know, all sin is equal. For an individual. Fact of the matter is, step in the way of Birth Control, spew religious rhetoric about how it's a sin, it'll end up causing more problems for everyone. Last thing we need. I say, if you think it's a sin, suck it up and let it go... A greater sin than allowing and even promoting contraception is NOT doing it. Tell fellow Christians not to, but don't stand in the way.

We do not need more unwanted kids. We do not need overcrowded adoption centers. And even prochoice people agree that we do not need more abortions. Even abstinence only sex education is counterproductive.

I agree completely. And it's not just a matter of preventing I think bringing a child into this world that you are unable to care for is a terrible thing to do.

sounds a little like a pro abortion argument...  

[`apple dumpling]

Lazarus The Resurected

`apple dumpling

Matt Pniewski

As much as people will probably criticize this take, here I go:

It's not black and white. It's a matter of what is more important....

Overpopulation, abortion, ect......


Or Birth Control.


If both are sins, what is the bigger issue? And yes, I know, all sin is equal. For an individual. Fact of the matter is, step in the way of Birth Control, spew religious rhetoric about how it's a sin, it'll end up causing more problems for everyone. Last thing we need. I say, if you think it's a sin, suck it up and let it go... A greater sin than allowing and even promoting contraception is NOT doing it. Tell fellow Christians not to, but don't stand in the way.

We do not need more unwanted kids. We do not need overcrowded adoption centers. And even prochoice people agree that we do not need more abortions. Even abstinence only sex education is counterproductive.

I agree completely. And it's not just a matter of preventing I think bringing a child into this world that you are unable to care for is a terrible thing to do.

sounds a little like a pro abortion argument...

I think it's irresponsible to allow yourself to become pregnant when there are safe and effective means of preventing it all together. That may be a better way of stating it. I'm not pro-abortion, I think abortion should always be a last resort- always. But I do support a woman's right to choose.  

[Priestley]

`apple dumpling

I think bringing a child into this world that you are unable to care for is a terrible thing to do.

I object to this statement. Our job should be to encourage the support of these children and, if necessary, provide facilities where children whose mothers decide that they are unable to cope can find a home in which to be raised and find loving people who will take care of them.

Why place guilt on the shoulders of people who are exercising natural biological urges to procreate when we do not place the same guilt on animals for doing so and being unable to support their offspring? It just boggles the mind.  

[Priestley]

`apple dumpling

I think it's irresponsible to allow yourself to become pregnant when there are safe and effective means of preventing it all together.

It's irresponsible to procreate now?

I argue that the only irresponsible thing is not accepting the consequences of one's actions.  

[`apple dumpling]

Priestley

`apple dumpling

I think it's irresponsible to allow yourself to become pregnant when there are safe and effective means of preventing it all together.

It's irresponsible to procreate now?

I argue that the only irresponsible thing is not accepting the consequences of one's actions.

Clearly I have lost my ability to communicate.

I find pregnancy irresponsible when people did not take the necessary measures to prevent an unwanted one. I realize birth control isn't 100% and no matter how safe you are there is always a chance. But it irritates me to no end when people complain about an unwanted pregnancy but didn't do anything to prevent it. That's half of being sexually active- keeping yourself educated about how to protect your body. The other half is learning to deal with and accept the consequences.

As I said, I fully support adoption. I don't think women who give a child up for adoption are terrible people. I myself want to adopt eventually. Rather, I applaud them for going through with the pregnancy, unwanted though it may have been. At the same time though, I am pro-choice simply because I understand other share different beliefs than myself and a woman has the right to make choices regarding her own body. As I said, I think abortion is a last option.

I suppose my gripe is more with sexual irresponsibility. I hold nothing against people who did everything right and got pregnant anyway.  

[Matt Pniewski]

Priestley

`apple dumpling

I think it's irresponsible to allow yourself to become pregnant when there are safe and effective means of preventing it all together.

It's irresponsible to procreate now?

I argue that the only irresponsible thing is not accepting the consequences of one's actions.

So is not taking the necessary precautions.



We can't have our cake and eat it too. We either have to accept Birth Control, and promote it, and try to develop better means.... Or we pretend to be so perfect and sin free by refusing it, and telling people it's wrong, and face the very real consequences of that.  

[Priestley]

Matt Pniewski

Priestley

`apple dumpling

I think it's irresponsible to allow yourself to become pregnant when there are safe and effective means of preventing it all together.

It's irresponsible to procreate now?

I argue that the only irresponsible thing is not accepting the consequences of one's actions.

So is not taking the necessary precautions.

Assuming that precautions are always necessary.

Matt Pniewski

We can't have our cake and eat it too. We either have to accept Birth Control, and promote it, and try to develop better means.... Or we pretend to be so perfect and sin free by refusing it, and telling people it's wrong, and face the very real consequences of that.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make with this false dilemma. I've pointed out the flimsiness of arguments against using birth control and contraception on the grounds of sinfulness. The only issue remaining is the weighing of consequences - positive and negative - for using and not using birth control and contraception.

Also, for the sake of clarity, it's worth mentioning not all forms of birth control are primarily contraceptive. The definitions of the two are slightly different. Birth control is used to choose when to get pregnant, contraception is used not to get pregnant. A further point to make is that the only form of contraception that effectively prevents sexually transmitted diseases other than abstinence is the condom.  

[`apple dumpling]

Priestley

Matt Pniewski

Priestley

`apple dumpling

I think it's irresponsible to allow yourself to become pregnant when there are safe and effective means of preventing it all together.

It's irresponsible to procreate now?

I argue that the only irresponsible thing is not accepting the consequences of one's actions.

So is not taking the necessary precautions.

Assuming that precautions are always necessary.

When wouldn't those precautions be necessary? Only when a couple wanted a child, in which case they wouldn't be complaining about having one.

And hormonal birth control effectively prevents against pregnancy for the entire month, thus making it contraception. It prevents a woman from ovulating, as well as increases the mucas lining in the cervix, preventing sperm from entering the uterus. It obviously doesn't prevent against STDs though.  

[Priestley]

`apple dumpling

Priestley

Matt Pniewski

Priestley

`apple dumpling

I think it's irresponsible to allow yourself to become pregnant when there are safe and effective means of preventing it all together.

It's irresponsible to procreate now?

I argue that the only irresponsible thing is not accepting the consequences of one's actions.

So is not taking the necessary precautions.

Assuming that precautions are always necessary.

When wouldn't those precautions be necessary? Only when a couple wanted a child, in which case they wouldn't be complaining about having one.

Precautions are used only to escape negatively perceived consequences, be those consequences giving/receiving sexually transmitted diseases and/or the inconvenience of getting pregnant. To me, the only valid reason for the condom is to reduce the risk of unknown spreading of STDs. The other consequences are just the inevitability of procreation which isn't inherantly sinful.

Since the drive to have sex is natural and powerful and is how procreation is stimulated, why should responsibility be so forcefully applied to it when we do not expect the same of animals? Just because we are humans, Christians, does not mean we should suddenly call the drive to reproduce a bad thing, nor get on people's cases for them having sex while being completely unprepared for the consequences: raising children. How many first time parents can say they were fully prepared to become parents, or that they fully understood what it was going to entail? One does what one can in the circumstances, just like animals depend on the hormones coursing through their bodies to give birth to and raise their offspring.

Fortunately, one of the characteristics that we have is the ability to prevent ourselves doing harm. Sure, condoms prevent STDs but, if one knows one has an STD, one must consider whether it's even wise to be participating in such a risky activity at all, let alone using a condom.

`apple dumpling

And hormonal birth control effectively prevents against pregnancy for the entire month, thus making it contraception. It prevents a woman from ovulating, as well as increases the mucas lining in the cervix, preventing sperm from entering the uterus.

Are you sure you're not talking about one particular hormonal contraceptive that prevents ovulation and menstruation? I'm pretty sure there are hormonal birth control pills that regulate the 28-day cycle of ovulation and menstruation.  

[`apple dumpling]

Priestley

`apple dumpling

Priestley

Matt Pniewski

Priestley

It's irresponsible to procreate now?

I argue that the only irresponsible thing is not accepting the consequences of one's actions.

So is not taking the necessary precautions.

Assuming that precautions are always necessary.

When wouldn't those precautions be necessary? Only when a couple wanted a child, in which case they wouldn't be complaining about having one.

Precautions are used only to escape negatively perceived consequences, be those consequences giving/receiving sexually transmitted diseases and/or the inconvenience of getting pregnant. To me, the only valid reason for the condom is to reduce the risk of unknown spreading of STDs. The other consequences are just the inevitability of procreation which isn't inherantly sinful.

Since the drive to have sex is natural and powerful and is how procreation is stimulated, why should responsibility be so forcefully applied to it when we do not expect the same of animals? Just because we are humans, Christians, does not mean we should suddenly call the drive to reproduce a bad thing, nor get on people's cases for them having sex while being completely unprepared for the consequences: raising children. How many first time parents can say they were fully prepared to become parents, or that they fully understood what it was going to entail? One does what one can in the circumstances, just like animals depend on the hormones coursing through their bodies to give birth to and raise their offspring.

Fortunately, one of the characteristics that we have is the ability to prevent ourselves doing harm. Sure, condoms prevent STDs but, if one knows one has an STD, one must consider whether it's even wise to be participating in such a risky activity at all, let alone using a condom.

Sex and the drive to have it is not inherently bad. Nor is procreation.

However, there are certainly many circumstances in which would not to find out they are expecting a child. If you want a child, that's all fine and dandy. Most parents would agree they weren't fully prepared, but if the pregnancy was planned it's still something that they wanted.

However, I have little sympathy for people who have an unplanned pregnancy simply because they weren't prepared. I realize not all unplanned pregnancies are a result of irresponsibility as not form of birth control is 100% effective, but with there being such a wide variety of options to protect against pregnancy I find it very irresponsible not to use them, especially when they are relatively cheap. Condoms are available for free at Planned Parenthood and many other family planning places, and hormonal birth control can also be relatively cheap, even without insurance, if you go through a place like Planned Parenthood. In addition to that, there's also spermicide, diaphragms, female condoms, IUDs, etc. And, in a worse case scenario, there's always Plan B, which can be a little pricey but it should never be used as your main form of contraception, only in case something like the condom breaking happens, or you get too carried away and forget to use normal contraception.

With all these options to protect against pregnancy, I find it really irresponsible to have an unwanted pregnancy. There's really no excuse as protecting your body is part of being sexually active. If someone is not mature enough to understand that, then they probably shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

Priestley

`apple dumpling

And hormonal birth control effectively prevents against pregnancy for the entire month, thus making it contraception. It prevents a woman from ovulating, as well as increases the mucas lining in the cervix, preventing sperm from entering the uterus.

Are you sure you're not talking about one particular hormonal contraceptive that prevents ovulation and menstruation? I'm pretty sure there are hormonal birth control pills that regulate the 28-day cycle of ovulation and menstruation.

As far as I know, there is not form of birth control that simply regulates ovulation.

General hormonal birth control contains synthetic progesterone and estrogen. Besides preventing pregnancy, it is also used to alleviate cramps, regulate a woman's menstrual cycle, reduce bleeding during her period, as well as a host of other period side effects like irritability, acne, moodiness, etc. There are also birth control pills containing just progesterone for woman who cannot take the synthetic estrogen, are breastfeeding, etc. These still act to prevent pregnancy.

My understanding is that if a woman wanted to become pregnant, she would simply stop taking her birth control pills. I have never heard of a hormonal method of birth control that only regulates a woman's cycle, as the higher levels of hormones prevent ovulation.