Birth Control ... Right or Wrong?

If you see truth in terms of MY and YOURS, I don't see any point in arguing with you.

The whole point about the blood is the language of life is figurative. If life was literally in the blood, well it just would not have made since. The breath thing is figurative two. If not than even partial birth abortion is OK. Since the doctor will stab the life out of the baby before the first breath is taken. Scary reasoning there.

 

"Helen, I understand that politics have a lot to do with it. But...is it responsible to continue bringing new children into an area where such conditions exist that it is more likely that they will die than live to adulthood?"------------------------------------------------------------

But I can think of a lot of good reasons to get rid of some adult folks, but God has forbidden me to do it. If you see the fetus as a non-person until it takes a breath, than you can abort anything, but if you see it as being a person you can't. feeling comfortable with killing it based on a guess about when it becomes a person is arrogant. But anyhow that is it for me. But our not having children in the USA and Europe seems to be making us vuneralble and could lead us to the end of or civilization as we know it.

 

No, no, Bunyon. Once a fetus has funtioning lungs it has breath(it'll take a doc to explain just how that works). Once is has a functioning heart it must have blood(it's own blood at that point cause not all babies have the same type blood as their mothers). At this point it would be murder to abort it by any method.

As for civilization as we know it....it's going to end anyhow whether we have kaboodles of babies or not.

I can see a fetus as a non person until the point that it has both blood and breath(heart and lungs). I think this is the point where we need to quit trying to convince each other. I think we both understand each other well enough.

It might be a good thing that God has forbidden us to get rid of some adult in certain places. I you and I might just agree on who should go!

 

What is it before it has blood and breath?

By the way, lungs or not, they cannot breath until at least six months along.... and even then only with intensive medical intervention.

So by your logic, we can abort up until the time they can actually breathe for themselves?????

 

Helen, I understand that politics have a lot to do with it. But...is it responsible to continue bringing new children into an area where such conditions exist that it is more likely that they will die than live to adulthood?

Life and death are in God's hands. "more likely to die"??

I have six children, five of whom were special case adoptions.

1. Scott -- my life was at risk with him and I was told to abort for my own safety. He was 32 last October and I cannot imagine a more wonderful son.

2. Jake -- the 8th of what would eventually be 11 children of a migrant worker. Brain damaged due to drugs given to him by his birth mother after he was born. Should never have been born, right? He's 29 now, and the father of three.

3. Julie -- the child of a concubine relationship in Taiwan, scheduled for abortion and then for drowning if she was a girl. Should never have been born, right? She is 26 now, married, and a blessing to everyone who knows her.

4. Rosendo -- born out of wedlock to a Mexican illegal who was 14 or 15 at the time of his birth. He is handsome, bright, and in college now at the age of 23.

5. Bianca -- full sister to Rosendo, born after the parents married, but born quite early because Dad beat Mom up pretty badly. She has amnionic band syndrome. Shouldn't have been born, obviously. But was sophomore princess for her high school homecoming and then senior princess at the senior ball. She is in college now at 21 years old.

6. Chris -- born to a heroin-addicted streetwalker in SF. Born slightly retarded. We got him at 20 months old and he was the coolest toddler in the world! But at 3 1/4 years old ended up with viral encephalitis which left him with an IQ of less than 20, autistic, and, now at 21, still needing his diapers changed every few hours. Obviously, he should have never been born either.

But I will tell you here and now that these six kids are the light of my life and each is an incredible blessing from God. I thank Him that they were not prevented from being born. This is my family.

 

"No, no, Bunyon. Once a fetus has funtioning lungs it has breath(it'll take a doc to explain just how that works). Once is has a functioning heart it must have blood(it's own blood at that point cause not all babies have the same type blood as their mothers). At this point it would be murder to abort it by any method."------------------------------------------------------------

It respires amniotic fluid, which I don't consider breathing. Just fYI. I'm not getting back in.

 

Helen,

that was a wonderful post. Have you written your book yet?

 

Helen I attempted to equate blood and breath with the development of the heart and lungs. This all takes place by the eighth week of pregnancy, the heart is in place by the fourth week. This site explains things rather well but is white print on black(pain to read): http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PHI/305.002/fd.htm

Therefore, aborting anytime after the presence of either Biblical sign of life would be murder. Before the formation of such organs it would not be. Zygotes have neither one therefore the loss of a zygote due to BC pills would not be murder.

Oh, I see I've used the word both where I should have used either in my last post. It's to late for me to fix it, sorry.

Personally, I don't like the idea of aborting an embryo/fetus once implantation has occured. But that is my personal feeling, based on the idea that the mother is at that point giving it both blood and breath.

Before implantation, I have no problem.

 

I believe some forms of birth control are okay.

 

Helen, I'm going to tell you something that may make you see red and will make me sound colder of heart than Snow White's step mother.

By your own post some of your children might not have been born if thier parents had simply chosen not to sin. Birth control would have had nothing to do with it. Surely you don't thank God thier birth parents sinned? I know you too well for that.

While I see you using them as an example for not aborting, I can't get quite get it as an example for not using birth control pills.

btw, you've done an admirable job in raising your children. I can't even imagine.

 

mk,

Helen's post is an example to me of not using bcp's because these wonderful children show that the world's reasonings FOR birth control can all be overcome with faith in God.

Of course, we don't approve of the sins which were committed. But those sins do not then make the children culpable. In fact, using birth control has made these sorts of sins even easier to commit. The couples acting in these fashions do not feel as "afraid" of the possible consequences of their actions because they are using birth control, and there's a chance they won't get pregnant.


One other thing I noticed again while reading through some of the pages, was the idea that if its techonoligically possible than it must be ok for us to do it.

The two faulty logics that have run in this thread have been that "if God can do it, than it must be ok for me to", and "if its possible technologically, than it must be something God condones."

God has "allowed" us to have the ability to "create" one life-form using both animal and human DNA. For now, this is illegal, I think, but it is possible. Does this mean that it is then something which God condones?

THe issue of infertility treatments Im not as sure of. But, I see places in the Bible where God denies us the right to end life, and even the right to prevent potential life from beginning.....but we ARE allowed to help begin life, as we are a part of the "pro-creation" process. We create life along with God, through reproduction.

Ive appreciated that this thread seems to be pretty low-key. While emotions are present, they do not seem to be ruling or running amock. Its nice to see.

 

So, then, can't the same logic be applied to using the intelligence God gave us to stop overpopulating? Are we not supposed to be good stewards of our planet? </font>[/QUOTE]I believe we should leave the amount of people who populate the planet to God whether by BC or fertilization treatments. Playing God is never a good idea, IMHO.

And please stop trying to tie environmentalism in to stewardship. It really demeans God. </font>[/QUOTE]Then, if taking care of our planet is not good stewardship of it, then what is?

Do you see a doctor when you are sick? Maybe we should leave the number of people surviving to God, eh?

And Helen, I don't know where you got the fallacious idea that we are at or below ZPG. Certain areas are, but other areas are booming. They migrate. You can click here ( World Population Clock) to see an animation of the increasing world population. (Of course, it can only be approximated from one census to the next.) Of course, one "solution" would be to euthanize the elderly, but I don't think that would solve much.

Now, the rate of increase (it is increasing, not matter what blinders you wear) is down to 1.5% right now (It's been about 2.3% for the last few years, but we'll go with the immediate past just to cushion the numbers for you). At that rate, the population doubles every 47 years.

Right now, there are about 7 billion people on the planet. (We'll round up to make it easier to figure; besides, they don't take into account the "non people" in China.) So, basically, that means that if we maintain the 1.5% rate (which is a dip), that in 47 years, there will be 14 billion people.

There are 28 million square feet in a mile, and 57.3 million square miles of land. (I'm not counting the 139.5 million square miles that is covered with water, but I am counting the area covered by ice.) That gives us about 16,000,000,000,000,000 square feet of land. If you assume that every person can survive on 2 square feet of land (this is including the part covered by ice, and not allowing any room for agriculture), you can fit 8,000,000,000,000,000 people on this planet. At a rate of growth of only 1.5%, this number would be reached in 940 years. (If you assume there are 100,000 habitable planets in the galaxy, and we figure out how to colonize them, we would have them just as packed in 658 years.

Now, if you assume a growth rate of 2.3% (which has been the worldwide growth rate for the last several years), it would take 608 years to pack our planet to a density of one person for every two square feet of land, and only 476 more to pack 100,000 planets to the same density.

Don't assume that just because your neighborhood is at a ZPG or falling that the entire planet is following suit.

Will we figure out how to live in the oceans and other places, if the Lord doesn't return? Maybe, but why tempt the Lord?

God has given us brains to learn things, and he has given us responsibilities. Just as we use the brains he gave us to treat diabetes, cancer, and other diseases that would have killed off great portions of our population just a few years ago, he has also given us brains to figure out that it's time to stop, and to do so responsibly. (Or, we could just follow the lead of China and mandate abortions for everyone.)

 

In my mind population growth is somewhat of a red herring in relation to the birth control topic as relates to this thread. I seriously doubt that many people do their family planning based on population growth, though I'm sure that some do. Regardless, it isn't a reason from Scripture but rather expedience. If one believes Scripture does not address the subject, then I suppose such an one is free to base their ideas on what they view as practical.

 

I base it on responsibility toward good stewardship of the planet over which I've been given responsibility.

On the other hand, my best friends have 12 kids. That's their business, and they have to justify it. Their attitude is they have the responsibility to outbreed the heathen.

 

I trust you meant to type that they "don't have to justify it."

I think their attitude is a reasonable one. If the heathen keep "outbreeding" us physically and spiritually who is going to reach the next generation.

 

Oops.

What about the faith in God to provide means to overcome the heathen without destroying the planet?

Now, I know that sounds argumentative towards you, but it's not. I'm just trying to show that it takes faith, no matter the course of action. But, we have been given a set of information, and a set of abilities, and a brain to use.

 

I won't be critical of anyone's decision on child bearing - no one has to justify their choices to me.

However, in the same light of "trusting God" would it no be reasonable to trust God totally when it comes to children? God said "go forth and multiply" and man says "having children destroys the planet." There is no evidence that having children is destructive to the planet.

Non-abortive birth control is up to individual choice. To accuse those who have 10, 12, 16 children of contributing to the destruction of the planet seems unjust to me.

 

In the same light, would it not be reasonable to trust God totally when it comes to medical care and avoid all doctors? How about trusting God to keep your car full of gas? Or trusting God to keep good tires on the car?

 

I do depend on the Lord provide proper medical care, petrol in the tank, and tyres on the car.

He provides those things in His way. Just as He will protect the world from the planet destoyers who insist on going forth and multiplying.

 

So, it would be OK to depend upon the Lord to provide the medical knowledge to prevent an excessive number of pregnancies?