Birth Control

This isn't really a theology question, but do you believe that we should use birth control? Why or why not? Discuss!

What if Rachel had used birth control when she was in labor with Benjamin? How many dynamic people would never have lived if she had (the Apostle Paul being one of them). (This is derived from a paragraph in a Wisdom Booklet that I read.) Ultimately when any woman uses birth control, it is a choice of her life over the life of her child.

But… as they say… "a woman should have a choice!" and "it's not really a baby until 8 weeks!"

Courtney,

Please tell me if you believe those 2 statements — or are you just being a "devil's advocate" for the sake of getting a discussion going?

I'm sure she's being a "devil's advocate," but I'll answer anyway.

First, a woman does NOT have a choice to murder. Just because it's inconvenient, and because its in your body, gives you the right to murder it? Where does this principle apply anywhere else??

As for "it's not really a baby until 8 weeks," are they truly sure about that? Are they really willing to take that risk if they might be ending a human life?

I do NOT believe those two statements. But what would you say if a pro choice person asked you why you don't believe in birth control? We need to be prepared to defend our beliefs! Not just appear stubborn, but give reasons as to why we believe what we do.

Everyone should really watch the DVD 180 with Ray Comfort. It helps with the abortion issue.

So what about birth control?

@Courtney Minca, I have heard similar things to "a woman should have a choice." As to that statement, I believe that SBG answered it quite well. Who would a mother be to say that her life is more valuable than the life of her baby? She is taking a life to preserve another life, theoretically. Furthermore, God has appointed the time of her birth, and He has appointed the time of her death. Nothing she does can change that. Therefore, if her time to die has come, she should just accept it. However, perhaps God has not appointed for her to die at that moment, and He will heal her. I realize that I am speaking from what I believe here. What a women would say might be totally different from what I said.

In answer to your second statement, biologists typically accept these four criterion for anything that is alive: it contains DNA, it can extract energy from its surroundings and convert it into food, it can sense changes in its surroundings and respond to the changes, and it can reproduce. As I understand it, a human fetus exhibits all four of these criterion at conception. I don't know about the third criteria, but it certainly exhibits the rest of them. Just my two cents :)

I think what Courtney means by "What about birth control" is, what about having a vasectomy? What about getting your tubes tied? What about the pill? That isn't really abortion, is it?

God "opens and closes the womb." There are all kinds of examples of this teaching in the Bible. If the reason that we are doing something is because we are not sure that we can trust God's wisdom, then we need to take a look at the basis for our proposed "faith". I contend that true faith, God-honoring faith, believes that God does all things well, and does NOT make mistakes, and can be completely trusted. The perfect number of children for any family to have — is the number that GOD chose for that family. And HOW will you know what that number for your family is, if by your actions you are saying to God, "Just in case You are not really in charge of life, I'll take over here"?

Choose life! Your mother did.

Choose life! Your mother did.

I totally agree!

For further references, check this page out: https://plus.google.com/101104328958648552891
It has great info!

Eden - did you just get on Memverse? Welcome anyways….cause I haven't seen you on here before! Can't wait to meet you! In Christ, Anna

Yes I did! :) It took awhile to get approved! :) I've heard all about you and hope I can make it to Nationals next year to meet you! :)

Yes I did! :) It took awhile to get approved! :) I've heard all about you and hope I can make it to Nationals next year to meet you! :)

Ammm… Eden… Do you realize you just wrote that twice???!!!

I once heard a quote of a doctor who said that, "One time I said the birth control pill only kills 1-2 babies per year, then I realized what I had just said…" Many people tend to think that abortion is "OK" in some cases… they justify it somehow… But they can never justify killing a infant outside the womb. If it's considered murder outside the womb, why is it not for inside the womb?

I believe that a baby that is still in the womb should be protected, regardless of whether the carrier consented to becoming pregnant or not. I am very much in favor of birth control though. There are ways to prevent pregnancy besides abortion and pills.
Yep! It's called abstinence!

Birth control is sinful unless it's for medical reasons; that's all there is to it.

Could you clarify "medical reasons"?

That's what I was just about to say. :P

Sure. I a pregnant woman is in a car accident and the uterus ruptures, they'll have to remove it or she'll bleed to death. This would cause the baby to die, but if the uterus wasn't removed, both the mother and baby would die. So they should do it to avoid leaving the mother to die.

There might be other reasons for taking pills and stuff like that; I don't know. But maybe for some reason it would be dangerous for a mother to have children or something. Then it would be okay, but I don't know how that would work, if it would work.

Hmm. I'd have to give that some more thought before deciding whether I agree with that or not…

Should we take the life of a human being, simply because he/she may be threatening the life of another human being?

Or are you talking about birth control apart from abortion, so that the sperm and egg haven't actually come together to form the zygote, which would be before there's any real life in the uterus?

I'd have to disagree… This is pretty hypothetical. I just don't think it's ever justifiable to take the life of an unborn human being…

The "Health of the mother" argument just doesn't stand.

In this case, however, it isn't really a "health of the mother argument." OCTSRIS's question is more along the lines of a "health of both" argument. Assuming his hypothetic situation is true (the situation he described has actually happened numerous times), are we justified in performing the operation to save the Mother? This is not the classic "mother or baby" question as it is a "who's at fault" question. In essence, are we justified in knowingly saving one life at the cost the other when we could ourselves be faultless, but allow both to perish? I think this is a very interesting question. As it is written (assuming we would know the outcome), I would say we are justified to save life if the alternative is death.

As for the "mother or unborn child" question, I would say that, in virtually every case (I can't at the moment think of any situations where this principle does not stand), we are never justified in deliberately killing one life to save another. To kill the mother to save the baby is just as wrong as to kill the baby to save the mother. Both are wrong and murder in the sight of God. However, I think we get into a very controversial subject if we delve into the "can we let the mother die (as opposed to killing her) in order to save the unborn child she bears" question. I myself haven't really sorted out a definite answer to that question. But I am firm in my conviction that killing one to save another is, in virtually every case, wrong.

@jimmy, I whole heartedly agree with you here.
@All, Here is a link that is very pertinant to this situation, by the Association of Pro-Life Physicians.
http://www.prolifephysicians.org/rarecases.htm

You've got a point… But I think all stops should be pulled out to try to save both lives. Which most likely would be what would happen.

As far as the argument to "take the baby to save the mother" goes… it rarely happens. I'm not saying that it can't happen, it's just not the norm. However, using that argument to say that abortion is somewhat okay always give the pro-choice movement a foothold.

I think this all comes down to a few questions. Is it okay to kill one person to save another? Is it okay to let someone die to save someone else? If killing one person would save another, should we kill the first person, or let both die and keep our hands clean? I'm pretty sure that the first question's answer is always "no," no matter the consequences. The answer to the second question, I think, depends on the circumstance, but I would usually say "yes" (although it would certainly be a very hesitant one). The answer to the third question is the hardest, but, though I would REALLY hate to do it, I think I would have to let both die.

I cannot justify in my mind killing someone, even if the person wants to die to save the other. I don't think I could bring myself to do it. If it is a question of letting someone die, I would fearfully allow it, though with much hesitancy.

What do the rest of you think about this?

I wholeheartedly agree with Bethany's comment–people try to use extreme cases that rarely happen to justify something totally different. This is an extreme event that rarely happens. (Take the baby to save the mother.)

Also, to answer your first question, I believe there ARE cases where killing IS justified Biblically, and your first question/scenario would be one of those cases where I would use any means to protect the innocent person.

I agree that some killing is justified biblically; I am not saying that it isn't (sorry if it sounded like I was). In my scenario, I was referring to what you should do if both people are innocent and you have to decide whether to kill one or let the other die. I could not justify in my mind killing someone just to save someone else, so I would (with much fear and trembling) allow one of them to die. True, these are extremely rare scenarios, but we need to prepare for everything and to know what we would do if we were ever faced with such a situation.

Okay wait…After a little more thought I realized that the scenario would not for sure kill one or the other person… It easily could, but because of medical practices, I would think the baby could possibly still be saved… I'm not a medical expert by any means, but it's an interesting thought.

You could say that if you did not remove the uterus, you're voluntarily leaving the mother to die - that's murder. It would be a tough call, but it's not like you're intentionally, or even directly killing the baby. It's not technically abortion. The baby's death happens to be the result of not leaving the mother to die.

@Cowboy4Christ~ What do you think about the scenario I mentioned; is that okay?

@Cowboy4Christ~ What do you think about the scenario I mentioned; is that okay?

has anyone heard of that poor lady that survived an abortion??? what a horrible thing.

Girls just want to do whatever they want with guys without having to go through public disgrace. makes me sick.

As far as birth control in desperate situations like that… I think God knows whose time on this earth is up and who still has yet to fulfill His will. I don’t think it is man’s place to ever take a life for reasons that are in the hands of God.

Your example is rather flawed, and life of the mother abortions consist of not even a mere percent of the millions of abortions! Right now, I would sign a bill that outlawed all abortions except for cases that include the life of that mother. That would save billions from being murdered! Then, I would concentrate on the 1%, and try to get that taken care of also. Personally, I think the "pro-murder" argumentation bringing up the life of the mother cases is very weak and personally I don't see ANY cases where an abortion is ever nescessary. In the scenario you mentioned, my response would be: deliver the baby! If the baby dies in the delivery and the mother is saved, that's not murder. There's not reason to 1, leave both the baby and mother to die, and 2, no reason to abort the baby in the less than a percent cases, it should be delivered. Bottom line: The pro-choice life of the mother argumentation is ridiculous at best, constitution less than a percent of the cases, and is never necessary. May the Lord bless your studies!

Okay, sorry - I accidentally forgot one detail: what if the baby is young young to survive at all outside the womb?

@Cowboy4Christ~ If I may ask, how old are you? I'm 15. I was VERY blessed by your comment. May the Lord bless you, too! I think we've all noticed a change. :-) By the way, sorry if I offended you on the guidelines forum. It was unnecessary (and perhaps foolish) of me to specifically mention your name. I had no intention of stirring up strife among the brothers. And now, I would no longer say that of you. :-)

I agree, Cowboy4Christ… before, I thought that abortion was never right, but seeing this conversation, I think that there is an exception when the case includes the life of the mother.

nice gravatar C4C… ;) would you mind sending it to me?

@AngelC: That wasn't what I was trying to communicate. I don't see a need ever for an abortion, I believe the baby should be delivered. If the baby is born dead, that would be a stillborn not an abortion and it wouldn't be murder. But when I'm talking to a pro-murder person, I'll tell them, sure, life of the mother cases constitute less than a percent, let's not legalize abortion just because of that!

Thanks for the encouragement! I'm somewhere around your age;)

As far as a very young baby, we know have the technology that a baby at just 24 weeks old can typically survive! Most life of the mother abortions are late-term, and the baby would survive if delivered, not aborted. This topic makes me sick. It shows the total moral decay of this nation. Angel Cowgirl said it well when she said that people just have abortions because they don't want public disgrace. Life is precious in God's eyes, and it should be in ours too.

@PC: As believer's, we're commanded to be fruitful and multiply, right? I don't know if I would encourage an unbeliever to do that, though. Instead of putting the heart before the horse, I would show that unbeliever that a lake or fire and eternal hell are waiting for them. I would show them that they need to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and be saved.

When we as Christians call out unbelievers sinful lifestyles, we should only do that if it's pointing them to Christ. I wouldn't encourage unbelievers to have children, but rather repent of their sins and the rest will follow. Maybe someone else could explain that better…it's a good question!

Oh I was confused, thanks. this world is certainly coming to an end! people are so corrupt. I can't wait till the rapture! :):)

You wouldn't encourage believers to have kids? Aren't children "a gift of the LORD, the fruit of the womb is a reward."(Psa 127:3)? Who's going to tell unbelievers to repent when believers are gone if the believers don't have kids? Please clarify!

I can't wait either! It could happen at any moment! Meanwhile, we'll work till Jesus comes!

Thanks for bringing that out, I had typo there that I just fixed, thanks to you for bringing it to my attention. I actually had "believer's TWICE where I meant UNbelivers…that's sort of a big deal:D

Okay, I was wondering there for a minute! Thanks! I agree with everything you said!

Thanks for bringing that to my attention!