Contraception

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Paul33:
One thing, though, if I offend someone or it's perceived by someone that I've been offensive, I do try to apologize. I wonder if you might try that in your last post to me?

*boggles*

Originally posted by TexasSky:
"The truth is, birth control has led us down the road to abortion. We decide when a baby is wanted and when birth control (or the lack of it) fails, we terminate the unwanted pregnancy."

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.

 

[Paul33]

So why aren't you minding yours?

 

[Johnv]

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.

 

[TexasSky]

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.

 

[Petrel]

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.

 

[TexasSky]

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

 

[Pastor Larry]

Pastor Larry, I've shared several times that I breast fed my 3 birth children with NO supplemental feeding, no cereals, no foods and my 2nd and 3rd are 15 months apart.

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.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, sometimes you amaze me with how inciteful you are, and sometimes I'm disappointed. This is one of those disappointing times.

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.

Folks aren't getting defensive when they cry "righteous", and "arrogant", and "proud?" And then you bring up my "defensiveness" in other threads. What does another thread have to do with this thread and the "defensiveness" of those who call others' names because he or she has pointed out the historical nature and attitude behind the use of birth control?

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?

Finally, Larry, I've never made the statement once that we ought to have as many children as we can. So your comment about wives is silly and has nothing to do with my comments on this thread.

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.

 

[4His_glory]

Paul33 said:

I've never condemned others who use birth control

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Johnv:
I've had a vasectory. How long am I allowed to have it until I'm hellbound, or fall from God's grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same childish attitude and argument.

You will answer to God for what you do the same as everyone else.

Your reason and motivation for a vasectomy will bring about your own judgment. If it is in line with God's revealed revelation, then you will have nothing to worry about, will you?

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.

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by 4His_glory:
Paul33 said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I've never condemned others who use birth control

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Johnv:
I've had a vasectory. How long am I allowed to have it until I'm hellbound, or fall from God's grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Same childish attitude and argument.

You will answer to God for what you do the same as everyone else.

Your reason and motivation for a vasectomy will bring about your own judgment. If it is in line with God's revealed revelation, then you will have nothing to worry about, will you?

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.

 

[Petrel]

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.

 

[Paul33]

 

[Petrel]

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

 

[Paul33]

Petrel,

Thanks. Sorry. And I think you know why.

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Larry, sometimes you amaze me with how inciteful you are, and sometimes I'm disappointed. This is one of those disappointing times.

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.

Folks aren't getting defensive when they cry "righteous", and "arrogant", and "proud?" And then you bring up my "defensiveness" in other threads. What does another thread have to do with this thread and the "defensiveness" of those who call others' names because he or she has pointed out the historical nature and attitude behind the use of birth control?

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?

Finally, Larry, I've never made the statement once that we ought to have as many children as we can. So your comment about wives is silly and has nothing to do with my comments on this thread.

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!

 

[Petrel]

Originally posted by Paul33:
Petrel,

Thanks. Sorry. And I think you know why.

Whoa! You surprised me!

Accepted.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

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.

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. [Laugh]

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?

 

[Paul33]

Hey, Is that a back-handed compliment?

Boy, I feel bad that I surprised you!

 

[Pastor Larry]

Larry, How do you know that I didn't mean "inciteful?"

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

 

[Paul33]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But breastfeeding on demand does indeed suppress ovulation. The average is 15 months. What is the basis for your statement? Mine is research and experience. My wife practiced breastfeeding and ovulation was suppressed for 15 months. How's that for experience.

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.

I submit that for the vast majority of persons, birth control is used for selfish and self-centered reasons.[/quoteAnd I submit that you are completely unqualified to comment on the reasons for the vast majority of anyone to do anything.

To those who claim that they don't have selfish reasons for practicing birth control, what are they so defensive about? Again, I submit that the reason they are defensive is that they know deep down that financial reasons are playing too large a role in their decision making process.

Nothing like making sure you can "make the payments before you buy the farm." I can't imagine how you can possibly object to finanacial responsibility.

I haven't seen great defensiveness. You got a lot more defensive in some of our conversations on other topics.

Larry, the wives statement was silly.

Yes it was, just like saying that children as blessings and therefore we should have as many as we can. Both are silly statements that should not be made.

</font>

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?