Contraception

*boggles*

I do think there may be some truth to this. The Catholics draw a connection between contraception, abortion, delayed child-bearing, delayed marriage, premarital sex, divorce, and adultery! I don't think it's contraception causing abortion, etc., so much as other societal changes fostering a worldview of self-actualization at the expense of the traditional family.

Contraception is just a tool, it can be used either in a good way or in a bad way. Except in the most extreme cases (like "I never want to have kids because I can't stand the little wretches," or "We want one kid who will be used by us to realize all of our dreams, regardless of his desires") it's impossible to tell what is in a person's heart, and I think it's wrong to leap to the most unflattering conclusion on so little evidence.

Basically, people should mind their own business.

 

So why aren't you minding yours?

 

There's no dispute that children are a blessing. But just because something's a blessing, doesn't mean we are scripturally required to have as much or as many as possible.

Money is a blessing. Am I therefore sinning if I'm not making as much as possible? Food is a blessing, but eating as much as possible is gluttonous. Sex with my spouse is a blessing, but if I thought she was tired now My car is a blessing, but for me to own several wold be foolish.

 

Paul,

Comments that are deliberately rude and insulting, like like, "You argue like an emotionally stunted person," are never appropriate from one Christian to another, but ESPECIALLY not from a man who claims to be a minister of God.

 

As an aside, I have been in many heated debates on message boards populated chiefly by non-Christians, and I have never been so insulted by any of them, with the single exception of one excellent, obscenity-laced flame that I received for saying I thought homosexuality was a sin.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

Noting Petrel's post above mine - I rest my case to Paul about the rudeness of his words.

 

Which is fine, and also irrelevant. It has been suggested by some, here and other places, that breast feeding is a natural way to space children, which means a form of birth control since ovulation is suppressed. My point is that it doesn't always work and should not be depended on to prevent pregnancy.

 

FWIW, the word you are looking for is insightful, not inciteful, and sorry to disappoint. The fact remains that you are not qualified to comment on why the vast majority of people do anything. Some, or the vast majority, may well be selfish. But you have defined selfish in a manner that supports your conclusion, not necessarily in a proper manner. For you, it seems that "selfish" is defined by finances. As someone who does marital and family counseling, finances are hardly a selfish reason in many cases. It is a fact of life that children cost money, and if a couple is struggling financially, bringing a child into the world doesn't help that.

Many people today fail to practice birth control for selfish reasons. Women get pregnant in order to have someone who loves them unconditionally. They want someone in their life. There are other selfish reasons why people have children.

Again, as above, you have defined "defensive" in a way that supports your conclusion. I haven't seen it here which is not to say that some haven't been defensive. It is to say that I haven't seen it in that light. But that may be because I don't have an axe to grind. I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't really care whether people use it or not. And so when someone defends the use of birth control, and objects to being called selfish, I don't find that to be "defensive." But I would think calling someone "emotionally stunted" certainly justifies some amount of defensiveness, don't you?

I don't believe that I said you said that. I was referring to a general attitude. I quoted no one and attributed such a statement to no one. I made a general statement. It sounds like you are the one being defensive here. If you didn't say that, then you have no need to object to my statement.

 

Paul33 said:

Oh really here was what you said only a page before.

That certainly sounds like a condemnation to me. You have continued to attack those who have a differnt POV and call them "selfish".

You have called people "childish".

Just remember that when you point a finger you have three more pointing back at yourself.

 

Oh really here was what you said only a page before.

That certainly sounds like a condemnation to me. You have continued to attack those who have a differnt POV and call them "selfish".

You have called people "childish".

Just remember that when you point a finger you have three more pointing back at yourself. </font>[/QUOTE]To Larry and 4His,

You don't think the above quote from Johnv is not being defensive?

Hellbound, etc.

My response wasn't a condemnation, although I can see why someone might take it that way.

Whatever we do, we stand in judgment of God. If you haven't violated God's will for you, what are you worrying about? Why all the histrionics of "hellbound, and there, take that!"

Larry, you referenced my post and alleged that I claimed that we all ought to have as many children as we can. You then used a silly example about having many wives.

Just once, Larry, in any context, I would like you to say to someone else, "I'm sorry." Even when a person agrees wtih you they get the back of your hand.

 

Wow.

At any rate, I've been thinking and I think that I ought to apologize. My use of reductio ad absurdum early on to needle Paul33 into delineating the limits of his objections to contraception probably was inciteful. In future I will try to be more subtle.

 

I'm so tempted to say nevermind, but I shan't.

 

Petrel,

Thanks. Sorry. And I think you know why.

 

FWIW, the word you are looking for is insightful, not inciteful, and sorry to disappoint. The fact remains that you are not qualified to comment on why the vast majority of people do anything. Some, or the vast majority, may well be selfish. But you have defined selfish in a manner that supports your conclusion, not necessarily in a proper manner. For you, it seems that "selfish" is defined by finances. As someone who does marital and family counseling, finances are hardly a selfish reason in many cases. It is a fact of life that children cost money, and if a couple is struggling financially, bringing a child into the world doesn't help that.

Many people today fail to practice birth control for selfish reasons. Women get pregnant in order to have someone who loves them unconditionally. They want someone in their life. There are other selfish reasons why people have children.

Again, as above, you have defined "defensive" in a way that supports your conclusion. I haven't seen it here which is not to say that some haven't been defensive. It is to say that I haven't seen it in that light. But that may be because I don't have an axe to grind. I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't really care whether people use it or not. And so when someone defends the use of birth control, and objects to being called selfish, I don't find that to be "defensive." But I would think calling someone "emotionally stunted" certainly justifies some amount of defensiveness, don't you?

I don't believe that I said you said that. I was referring to a general attitude. I quoted no one and attributed such a statement to no one. I made a general statement. It sounds like you are the one being defensive here. If you didn't say that, then you have no need to object to my statement. </font>[/QUOTE]Larry, How do you know that I didn't mean "inciteful?" You do have a way of making things flamable! I would use the word "incendiary," but I don't know how to spell it!

 

Whoa! You surprised me!

Accepted.

 

Where did I reference your post and allege anything about what you claim? I referenced a post by someone else, but it wasn't you. And yes, I used a silly example, to point out a silly assertion. If you didn't make the assertion, then you have nothing to be upset about.

I have apologized many times, both publicly and privately. I haven't given anyone the "back of my hand," certainly not here. I don't know why you are upset and demanding an apology. What did I do wrong?

 

Hey, Is that a back-handed compliment?

Boy, I feel bad that I surprised you!

 

Just guessing by the apparent contrast with disappointed. I assume you don't want me to incite things.

 

A breastfeeding lady in my church who just found out she was pregnant. How's that for experience? It may suppress it for up to 15 months, but that is no guarantee. It is not a good method to use as birth control. It is like using the rhythm method, and you know what they call people who use the rhythm method.

Here's the post that I reacted to. Sorry, Larry. I must have been hit over the head one too many times today. You are right. You actually don't attribute the statement in question to me. In fact, it appears that you are agreeing with me.

Wow!

Can you still tell me your sorry?