Birth Control

Well, I’d never thought of it that way before… you have a point. But I have one question: Isn’t that command given in Genesis to all living things…unbelievers as well?

Jesus is the only way to God. We are the witnesses of that Way, but you can’t force Christianity on someone. I would greatly appreciate it if you would be praying for the Holy Spirit to work in the heart and life of my friend.

Wow! 24 weeks? God has blessed us! Okay, well, I absolutely agree that we should do everything within our power to save both lives.

@SammyMac~ Your previous username was better. :-)

I think a second part to the original question is this–what about birth control that has nothing to do with destroying embryos, but rather preventing conception "naturally" in the first place? Without becoming explicit, can anyone offer insight about alternative prevention methods? Should a husband and wife let conception happen naturally always, or is there any appropriate time when a husband and wife can use alternative conception prevention methods to "wait" to have children? The specific application/'case study' I have in mind is college students who are married–with reference to a tight budget and the need to fully support one's family.

My belief is if God gives the children, He will give the means to support them. I think that just as any other area in life, the womb should be surrendered to God. This does not necessarily mean a "large" family (though it does a lot of the time). :) Would it be right to refuse His blessings?

Kudos to my dad for posting this article - http://www.righttome.com/2013/10/26/pro-choice-vs-pro-life-where-do-you-draw-the-line/ He really sums it up nicely.

Where would America be if every Christian couple surrendered their womb to God?

A rhetorical question that should be convicting. Let the Christians multiply (literally - I believe our numbers should multiply every generation), and let the pro-choice movement wipe themselves out with their self-destructive abortion and eugenics! :P

Here's a quote I recently saw:

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion is already born…"

Please, PLEASE, choose life!!!! It breaks my heart to think of the thousands of innocent children who have been murdered by the hands of others. CHOOSE LIFE…your mother did!

As much as I love that quote, Rachel, it's a little off-topic… :)

Oh…I guess it is. Sorry. :)

Birth control is an abortifacient - the conception has already taken place - it just prevents the embryo from implanting in the mother's womb.

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion is already born…"</blockquote>

Just Curious… Where did u see that quote??

That would definitely depend on what is meant by "birth control." Contraceptives, the most common form of birth control, are NOT abortifacients. They serve to prevent conception, and thus have no role in ending human life. I would agree that, if a pill prevents a conceived embryo from implanting in the mother's womb, that that is a form of abortion. Generally speaking, though, birth control does not do this.

I don't agree. I am sure there are a few forms of birth control out there which prevent conception (and so doing don't actually end a life), but not very many. Most of them just prevent the newly conceived embryo from implanting in it's mother's womb, which is abortion.
Usual excuses for using birth control usually go something like this - "We are just not ready for children (or another child)" … "We can't afford it", etc. etc. etc. Well, God is pretty capable to decide whether you are ready now or not, and if He gives you a child, He will also provide to means to afford "it". Is there really a good excuse for using birth control? God has instituted natural laws in the Bible to space out children anyways - abstaining during a woman's cycle, and for a certain period of time after each child.
If Christians keep using birth control, Islam is going to take over the world. I'm serious. The average American reproductive rate is 1.8, while Muslims have a rate of 7.8. We don't even have enough productivity to maintain our population!

^^^^^ Ditto! ^^^^^

I agree with your sentiment COMPLETELY, Tabitha! I believe as you do that a family should leave the number of children to God. Birth control generally goes against that entire idea. I am also sobered by the statistic you brought up. Our country definitely needs more children (they are cute, anyway :) ) What I disagree about, though, is the accusation that contraceptives always = abortion. My point is that, in reality, the MOST COMMONLY USED birth control pills do not destroy life; they may prevent that life from happening (which is not necessarily theologically sound), but it is not murder. I agree that there are many birth control pills that really do act as abortifacients, but I would just caution you not to commit the part-to-whole fallacy. Just because some birth control causes abortion does not mean it all does. Birth control might, as a whole, ruin God's intention for a family, but it does not necessarily mean that the husband and wife are guilty of murder.

I hope you understand where I am coming from. Again, I agree completely with you regarding God's intentions for the family. You make very good points. :)

I myself haven't really studied about the actual birth control pill - I got that part from my dad. :-) I still think that if you actually studied what the pill does, you would see that it is abortion. But, I can't prove that…yet. Just you wait…JK,JK. I would like to study it, though.
Oh, and my actual name is Courtney! Sorry - I forgot to change my username back after that Bible week thingy. :-P

It may not technically be abortion, but it is still preventing a life. In my book, they are the same. (See my dad's blog I posted above)

^^ I agree. I'm glad that most people here agree on this. It's hard to find many people anymore who share this view.

It pretty much started when there was a renewal of the break between Protestants and Catholics (during the 20th century, I think), and because Catholics were adamantly against birth control, Protestants naturally wanted to go against them, so they decided to be okay with it. I think that was a big mistake. =/

birth control is the same attitude as abortion-dont want kids…..

VERY true.

and God looks at the heart…..so yeah I'm agains birth control :D

besides kids are awesome :)

^ True that.

I almost wasn't conceived because of birth control, and over half of my siblings would never have been born if my parents had gone through with the decision they almost made to stop having kids. Thankfully, God had greater plans for our family than my parents did at that time. ;)

What, by the way, is everyone's definition of abortion? I believe that most would agree that it means, "The end of something. To shut off or to terminate." That is what abort means, I think (unless you have a different definition, which would I would very much like to hear). In this context, then, how does preventing life (which, for the record, I say is very wrong. Life should be cherished and so should families) from even starting qualify as abortion. If life has not even started, how could non-abortifacients count as causing abortion? Again, I still think birth control is wrong, but is it on the level of actual murder (like abortion), and if so, how? In what sense can we condemn for what might have been? If an individual were to kill someone, should he be put on trial for the death of one man, or for the deaths of the victim's descendants that might have been? It seems like a rather slippery slope for morality.

I am just asking these questions for clarification. Your answers intrigued me and I wanted to understand your understanding better. :)

I agree with you, Jimmy. I think their thinking is even though abortion is cutting off an actual life, birth control prevents a life from beginning…. so it's still against life… in that sense, I guess.

http://www.righttome.com/2014/01/01/if-we-had-listened/

http://www.righttome.com/2014/01/11/being-hit-by-a-truck-%E2%89%A0-having-babies/

Hi, all! I know that this is a little off-topic, but I thought you guys might find this article interesting. I actually know the person who wrote it (and, in case you are wondering, he is entirely pro-life and a firm believer). I wanted to hear your thoughts on this interesting perspective. As you read, though, keep in mind that he also does not advocate birth control, so do not think that he is trying in any way to justify abortifacients or birth control, for the reasons you stated earlier (it prevents life from beginning).

Life Week: Life in a Heartbeat
Today’s article features guest writer Ruan Meintjes. Ruan is an alumnus of Generation Joshua who has participated widely in speech and debate on the national level through NCFCA. He placed 9th in persuasive speaking at the national level by arguing that life begins at the heartbeat and that the pro-life movement should focus on “Heartbeat Bills” to stem the tide of abortion in our nation. In this article, he advocates the theory that life begins at the heartbeat, rather than fertilization.

Some might ask why it is necessary to deviate from the standard pro-life argument that life begins at fertilization. In the modern academic debate, one of the biggest hurdles to the theory that life begins at conception is the question of personal identity – can a divisible embryo be considered a unique, individual person? It is this question that the heartbeat theory seeks to answer.

As always, the views appearing on this blog are not necessarily the views of Generation Joshua or HSLDA and should not be construed as positions of either.

Ruan Meintjes
Defining the starting point of life is crucial in the fight against abortion. Because of its importance, I propose we reevaluate our stance on life in the context of science and theology.

As we enter into the realms of science and theology, we need a clear definition of human life. The definition I want to offer is this: human life is a trichotomous entity, consisting of the body, the soul and the spirit. Life starts when these three components join, and it ends when they separate. This, of course, begs the question, when exactly do these components join?

Take the example of identical twins. If a fertilized embryo were mechanically split under a microscope before 14 days, the result would be identical twins. Did the embryologist split the soul and spirit with his blade? Is it even possible to split the non-physical with the physical? Identical twins, although similar in appearance and originating from the same embryo, are two distinctly different human beings in spirit. A 14-day old embryo cannot be split in this manner, because its millions of cells have already specialized to the point where the tiny heart cells beat, the very first sign of the presence of blood. Splitting it would kill it. The heartbeat, therefore, provides an acceptable scientific indicator of life.

Further, few people realize that approximately 80% of all naturally conceived human embryos do not grow past the eight cell stage of development, that is a 5 day old embryo. Because our gene pool deteriorates with each generation, we have arrived at a point where the genetics contained in the majority of egg and sperm have been corrupted past the point of natural repair. What this means for our argument today is that 80% of all embryos fail to properly form organs, appendages, and other features essential to life. Here is the question: all these embryos were fertilized, but did they ever have a spirit and soul? Practically, if we believe that life starts at fertilization, we believe that 80% of the human race never takes their first breath.

We turn now to look at what Scripture has to say on the matter. Blood has special meaning in the Bible. The obvious question is, “why?” In Genesis 9:4, we get the first answer. God said to Noah, “But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” (New King James Version, Genesis 9:4). Later in Leviticus, God dedicated a whole chapter to the sanctity of blood, saying, “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’” (New King James Version, Leviticus 17:11). God further explains in Leviticus 17:14, “for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood sustains its life. Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘You shall not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Whoever eats it shall be cut off.’” (New King James Version, Leviticus 17:14). It is very clear that blood has serious meaning, both spiritually and physically. In the New Testament, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, on a spiritual level, demonstrates the life qualities of blood. Jesus, speaking to uncomprehending Jews in John 6 said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life…” (New King James Version, John 6:53-54). Naturally, Jesus was speaking illustratively, showing the path to Salvation. However, I think it concludes this point well, indicating that blood is the silver cord that binds our body, soul, and spirit together.

The case is clear. Scientifically, we have very good grounds to believe that the spirit and the soul are not bound to the body at fertilization. Theologically, we have every reason to believe that God endows a child with the spirit and soul when the blood is present. At 22 days, an ultrasound screen will show something almost magical: the heart of a little being no larger than a kernel of rice, pulsating fiercely to drive a life-giving iota of blood to every growing cell. That, undisputedly, is what we call life.

By Ruan Meintjes

Thoughts?

What would be the motivation for changing our opinion of when life begins, as in a living soul?
If we say that life begins at heartbeat #1, instead of conception, will this open the door for justification of early abortions etc.?
If life begins at heartbeat #1, then those science experiments which we call unethical for their destruction of human embryos, may no longer be called unethical for their destruction of life.
What about a guy named Noah, who was a snowflake baby (frozen embryo in a lab), before there was some sort of disaster, where the frozen embryos were stored, An embryo was then given to a couple, who then had a healthy baby who to my knowledge is alive today.
I apologize, I was writing this example, and then could not recall where I had read, or heard of this; I'm thinking it was either World mag, or Wretched radio, but couldn't find it later.

I found it very interesting. However, I believe that God is in control of fertility and His command stands: “Be fruitful and multiply”(Genesis 9:1). If He chooses that 80% of the human race should not ever take their first breath then that is His decision. God is the Creator and He knows best. But it would be wrong for us to destroy the system He set in order for our good. Children are a blessing from the Lord (Psalm 127:3)! :)

Miles- I think it must have been World Mag. because I remember reading about that as well. Very good points by the way!

So, I'm curious. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE who shares my (unradical) view on birth control?

http://www.righttome.com/category/birth-control/

I agree with you. I don't think that birth control is ever okay.

Thank you! I knew there had to be someone. :) Anyone else?

I agree with you too, Courtney!

Thank you! I knew there had to be someone. :) Anyone else?

Me!!! Count me in!!

I believe that abortion is never right because God hates the shedding of innocent blood (Deut 19:10, 13; Prov 6:16-17).

So, if birth control is always abortifacient, then it is never right. If a non-abortifacient birth control exists, it would be a whole different discussion.

EDIT: I didn't look at the website you posted, since I have controlled internet access.

@Bella and Amara - great!

I agree that abortion is never right. I don't know if a non-abortifacient birth control exists, but in my opinion it doesn't really matter. I will explain with a few Biblical points…

1) Psalm 127 - Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man, so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with them enemies in the gate.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to reject the Lord's reward. :) And we are in a war - children are our arrows. I don't want to go into battle with just a few arrows. I want to make a real difference!

2) Genesis 1:28 - And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
This is a command. Not a suggestion.

3) A common reason people use for using birth control (the same reason many people use for aborting their baby, BTW) is that they can't afford a child, or another child right now. Don't you think that, if God entrusts us with a child to take care of, He will provide the means to afford the costs involved?

Oh, I have controlled internet access too. It's fine. :) That website is my family's blog, so your parents would probably approve it for you to look at if you want to ask them. My dad has written several articles on birth control.

I completely agree! You stated your points quite clearly.

I completely agree! You stated your points quite clearly.

Thank you both! This is one of the few areas I actually have my thoughts and opinions formed quite clearly. :)

Thank you both! This is one of the few areas I actually have my thoughts and opinions formed quite clearly. :)

You're welcome!! Well, after all, it is right! ;)

I agree (and I have eight siblings). I want as many children as the Lord will give me when the time comes: they are a gift, a weapon, and a joy.

What I meant by saying that non-abortifacient birth control was a different topic, was that murder and not trusting God are very different issues.
Imagine a family whose father is jobless. He and his wife would love another child, but he wants to wait until he knows that he will be able to pay the hospital bill, not to mention feed the child. I could say that he needs to trust God to care for his family, and that God won't give him more than he can handle. But I am able to understand that he feels it is wise stewardship to wait. Does that make sense?

^ Sums up my thoughts exactly.

Great!

Yes, that makes sense to me. Honestly, I'm not sure what I would do in that situation. It's a hard question to think about.

For one, you could have a home birth instead of a hospital birth. They're much better anyways. :) It's still a hard question, though.

Hurray! I'm so glad we aren't in disagreement. :D

Home birthing is illegal here. :P

:D Me too!

jaw hits the floor You can't be serious. What state do you live in? Well, whatever state it is, I'd rather not live there. :P

*jaw hits the floor* It's illegal to have a home birth in Alabama!?!?

:*jaw hits the floor* It's illegal to have a home birth in Alabama!?!?

It won't be long before most states are that way. Hospitals, government, and doctors don't like midwifes much. They take to much of the business. Missouri, as well as a lot of other states, have stricter laws for midwives then Ohio.

Well. WELL! To think that…I'm glad I live in Texas. It's freer.

So what you do all think of working 'underground' as a midwife? Would it be wrong to break the law if midwifery and home-birth became illegal? If the government tried to control our fertility?