DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: kimba1 on November 16, 2007, 05:27:04 PM
-
Idea came to me from a ealy post
if a family has 7 kids
is it a sin for the father to have a vasectomy?
or to use birth control?
would the prolife people or the church object?
-
would the prolife people or the church object?
Pro-life does not extend prior to conception.
And it depends on which church you're talking about.
-
Pro-life does not extend prior to conception.
it doesn`t??
I`ve been to many pro-life rallys and everysingle one of them frown upon birth-control.
I had a large impression that abortion was never the only subject .
I know not all pro-lifers are against birth-control
but the organization itself is another matter
I`m just asking would having a ton of kids be a exemption
-
Pro-life does not extend prior to conception.
it doesn`t??
I`ve been to many pro-life rallys and everysingle one of them frown upon birth-control.
I had a large impression that abortion was never the only subject .
I know not all pro-lifers are against birth-control
but the organization itself is another matter
I`m just asking would having a ton of kids be a exemption
Very interesting question... I've never heard, myself, of a pro-lifer being against contraception. But OTOH I can certainly believe it. Considering I would imagine most pro-lifers are religious, and I know that Catholics are against birth control, aren't they?
I'm currently waffling somewhere between pro-life and pro-choice, so I've yet to firm up my position, but I'd NEVER be against someone using any form of birth control. That seems like the very responsible thing to do if you're going to have sex and don't want kids.
I may google and see if there is a pro-life organization I could mail your question to!
-
The largest part of the anti-choice movement (they call themselves pro-life) are members of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Church is against any form of birth control other than the so-called "rhythm method".
The Holy Mother Church does not favor any sexual activity that does not have the potential of producing a baby.
If they managed to get an absolute national ban on abortion tomorrow, by the following Tuesday, many would be trying to ban contraceptives and even information about contraception, as they have done in the past.
Father John used to warn the boys in catechism class about urination: "It you shake it more than three times, lads, that's masturbation", he said.
-
>>Father John used to warn the boys in catechism class about urination: "It you shake it more than three times, lads, that's masturbation", he said.<<
Sure he did.
Anyway, It's true, Catholicism preaches against birth control because God created sex for procreation. To remove the chance of procreation you deny God's will. As for denying birth control, it's ridiculous religious bigotry to suggest such a thing.
-
It is true that the Catholic Church preaches against birth control. But it is also true that most communicants in the US disregard those teachings and practice one form of birth control or the other.
-
<<Pro-life does not extend prior to conception.>>
it doesn`t??
No, it doesn't
-
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2007/10/18/cnn-s-cafferty-slams-bush-s-anti-birth-control-twilight-zone-appointe
-
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2007/10/18/cnn-s-cafferty-slams-bush-s-anti-birth-control-twilight-zone-appointe
relevance?
-
There are a lot of Pro -life prodestants , and for us it is no issue .
Is there a stigma attached to having a large family?
Does a multi para mother of a father of seven deserve social opprobrium?
-
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2007/10/18/cnn-s-cafferty-slams-bush-s-anti-birth-control-twilight-zone-appointe
relevance?
Looking forward to this revelation. Should I not hold my breath?
-
kimba1, I randomly selected a pro-life organization from google. You will read that they also turned out to be religiously based. I visited http://www.prolifeaction.org/ (http://www.prolifeaction.org/) and asked them your question.
Here is their reply:
Thanks for writing.
As for the questions this blogger raises, some parsing is required. Let me preface my responses by saying that they reflect the Catholic Church's teaching, which is also that of our organization, the Pro-Life Action League, as well as my own personal beliefs.
I'll give the short answers first.
> if a family has 7 kids
> is it a sin for the father to have a vasectomy?
Yes.
> or to use birth control?
If by "birth control" she means contraception (condoms, the pill, an IUD, other forms of hormonal birth control, withdrawal, etc.), then the answer is also "yes". (See further clarification below.)
> would the prolife people [object?]
Some would. Some wouldn't. Sadly -- nay, tragically, I would say -- pro-lifers are divided on this question.
> or the church object?
It depends on what is meant by "the church". The Catholic Church has always condemned contraception. So too did every Protestant denomination until 1930.
Since then, most every Protestant denomination has changed its teaching to accept it. However, in more recent years, many individual Protestants have begun to "return", if you will, to the traditional Christian teaching that contraception is sinful, although as far as I can tell, it's rather rare to see an entire Protestant church as a whole take such a strong stand against the sinfulness of contraception.
> Later on she clarified to someone that her question was based on; if
> a family had numerous children, would that be a factor. For her sake,
> her actual statement is:
>
> "I`m just asking would having a ton of kids be a exemption"
The short answer is no. It's wrong for a couple to use contraception if they have no kids or if they have 7, or 10, or 15, or however many, as contraception is absolutely antithetical to the self-giving nature of sex.
The sexual act - or, the marital act or one-flesh union - is a physical expression of a couple's marriage commitment. In a very real sense, when a couple engages in one-flesh union, they are renewing their wedding vows, an essential component of which is to accept children lovingly from God (cf.
Gen. 1:28, 2:24; Luke 1:38).
Just as it it wrong for a couple to claim that they can be "faithful" to each other throughout their marriage without each and every sexual act to be with each other, so it is also wrong for a couple to claim that their marriage is open to the possibility of children without each and every sexual act being so.
For a more detailed explanation of why this is, see this post from my personal blog, in which I informally debated with another pro-lifer who saw nothing wrong with contraception:
http://jdjansen.blogspot.com/2007/04/contraception-debate.html (http://jdjansen.blogspot.com/2007/04/contraception-debate.html)
Let me qualify this by saying, however, that this does *not* mean that a married couple is not morally permitted to use natural family planning (which is often erroneously, and regrettably, referred to as "the rhythm method" or "calendar rhythm") to monitor a woman's fertility and elect to make love when she is not fertile. There is a crucial distinction between NFP and contraception; that NFP is morally acceptable is explained in more detail in a few articles I link to here:
http://tinyurl.com/ypz7ay (http://tinyurl.com/ypz7ay)
For what it's worth, you might also be interested in this write-up of a conference we sponsored last year on contraception:
http://prolifeaction.org/home/2006/cinta3.htm (http://prolifeaction.org/home/2006/cinta3.htm)
I hope my responses have been helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Yours for Life,
John Jansen
Co-Director
Generations for Life
Youth Outreach of the Pro-Life Action League http://generationsforlife.org (http://generationsforlife.org) http://prolifeaction.org (http://prolifeaction.org) http://familiesagainstplannedparenthood.org (http://familiesagainstplannedparenthood.org)
http://facebook.com/group.php?gid=6365972046 (http://facebook.com/group.php?gid=6365972046)
-
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2007/10/18/cnn-s-cafferty-slams-bush-s-anti-birth-control-twilight-zone-appointe
relevance?
It was only just over a year ago, during the summer of 2006, that the FDA under Bush approved "the morning-after pill" for over-the-counter dispensing, a move that many social conservatives criticized at the time.
-
kimba1, I randomly selected a pro-life organization from google. http://www.prolifeaction.org/ (http://www.prolifeaction.org/) and asked them your question.
A lot depends on who you ask.
-
kimba1, I randomly selected a pro-life organization from google. http://www.prolifeaction.org/ (http://www.prolifeaction.org/) and asked them your question.
A lot depends on who you ask.
Yeah, even the gentleman I corresponded with admitted there was some room for discussion in their organization. But I believe he was pretty fair handed in his answer. I offered him the URL to this site. He may or may not choose to respond on his own. I did, however, find his information... well, informative. :)
-
wow thanks seamus
this also brings more questions
is it wrong for couple to decide to never have sex??
<The sexual act - or, the marital act or one-flesh union - is a physical expression of a couple's marriage commitment. In a very real sense, when a couple engages in one-flesh union, they are renewing their wedding vows, an essential component of which is to accept children lovingly from God (cf.
Gen. 1:28, 2:24; Luke 1:38).>
is the willingness to not renew thier marriage vows.
this question maybe too involve to get an answer.
I do notice couple who decide not have children get harrassed abit.
of course every parent says they don`t harrass
but on this subject they hardly can be called civil.
the most common phrased spoken is selfish
-
wow thanks seamus
this also brings more questions
is it wrong for couple to decide to never have sex??
<The sexual act - or, the marital act or one-flesh union - is a physical expression of a couple's marriage commitment. In a very real sense, when a couple engages in one-flesh union, they are renewing their wedding vows, an essential component of which is to accept children lovingly from God (cf.
Gen. 1:28, 2:24; Luke 1:38).>
is the willingness to not renew thier marriage vows.
this question maybe too involve to get an answer.
I do notice couple who decide not have children get harrassed abit.
of course every parent says they don`t harrass
but on this subject they hardly can be called civil.
the most common phrased spoken is selfish
Well, as I'm not a self proclaimed pro-lifer OR pro-choicer, and I'm rather agnostic... All I can say about NOT having children as being selfish is... Overpopulation Much???
Seems to me it's almost more selfish to HAVE children when there are thousands who are being born that are either being put in the system or SHOULD be. We have plenty already...
-
What sort of person is haveing plenty of Kids?
Is that the sort of person that will dominate the future?
-
What sort of person is haveing plenty of Kids?
Is that the sort of person that will dominate the future?
I think I missed something.
I'm trying to say that there are many children to adopt. Also, there are many children in the welfare program that could be fostered. I don't see that anyone can claim that its' selfish NOT to have kids when we as a nation are... throwing them away?
-
I don't see that anyone can claim that its' selfish NOT to have kids when we as a nation are... throwing them away?
Let us assume that the prime directive is to leave this vale better than we found it. What better way than to raise, nurture and train someone who will leave the world a better place than you left to them.
-
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2007/10/18/cnn-s-cafferty-slams-bush-s-anti-birth-control-twilight-zone-appointe
relevance?
I was trying to find answers to Kimba's question, and came upon that article. I thought it was interesting and somewhat informative.
-
I thought it was interesting and somewhat informative.
I found it self serving and petty.
Do you believe sex education is a waste of time?
Hand out contraceptives like candy and let kids be prisoners of their hormones?
And i am referring to all ages of kids.
-
You didn't like the article much, I see.
I of course believe in sex education. Handing out contraceptives like candy, no, i don't believe in that.
-
I of course believe in sex education. Handing out contraceptives like candy, no, i don't believe in that.
So what is your problem with Orr's approach?
-
sex ed is a tricky thing
it`s assumed that it`s a licence for kids to have sex.
but nobody actually gave it thought,how hard kids have it
remember adult men don`t like using rubbers
so can you imagine kids dealing with them
it`s a chore just for adult to take vitamins
so a teenage girl to take a pill can be tough
don`t forget the side effect of the pill
so birthcontrol is not exactly an endorsement for more sex.
-
I don't see that anyone can claim that its' selfish NOT to have kids when we as a nation are... throwing them away?
Let us assume that the prime directive is to leave this vale better than we found it. What better way than to raise, nurture and train someone who will leave the world a better place than you left to them.
Oh, I'm all over you with agreement! I'm just bringing up the idea that we should take one of the children that already exist and do it. Bring them in, raise them and nurture them and show them what the meaning of your family is all about. Their genetic makeup may be different, but the SOUL of your family will live on.
-
I'm just bringing up the idea that we should take one of the children that already exist and do it. Bring them in, raise them and nurture them and show them what the meaning of your family is all about. Their genetic makeup may be different, but the SOUL of your family will live on.
What's stopping you?
-
I'm just bringing up the idea that we should take one of the children that already exist and do it. Bring them in, raise them and nurture them and show them what the meaning of your family is all about. Their genetic makeup may be different, but the SOUL of your family will live on.
What's stopping you?
Me personally? Plenty of (private) reasons, mostly stemming from health. All of which will be keeping me from having ANY children, biological or adopted.
-
I'm trying to say that there are many children to adopt.
Tried adopting one in this country recently?
It's such a pain that my sister went to China and Russia to adopt her two kids. They pretty much told her and my brother in law that since they're white, and most of the kids available for adoption in the US are black, hispanic, or mixed race, that it would be near impossible for them to adopt one of 'em. Seems like the powers that be frown on whites raising colored babies and go to lengths to prevent it from happening.
-
I always thought that`s racist
it gives the message that it`s better to keep a child in the systyem than to have a child raise by white parents.
have you notice not much is said about the lack of non-white couples adopting.
In my community I know nobody adopting.
-
Idea came to me from a ealy post
if a family has 7 kids
is it a sin for the father to have a vasectomy?
or to use birth control?
would the prolife people or the church object?
In the Catholic Church, yes, it would be a sin. The only acceptable birth control is the Rythym Method/Calendar Method.
-
wow thanks seamus
this also brings more questions
is it wrong for couple to decide to never have sex??
<The sexual act - or, the marital act or one-flesh union - is a physical expression of a couple's marriage commitment. In a very real sense, when a couple engages in one-flesh union, they are renewing their wedding vows, an essential component of which is to accept children lovingly from God (cf.
Gen. 1:28, 2:24; Luke 1:38).>
is the willingness to not renew their marriage vows.
this question maybe too involve to get an answer.
I do notice couple who decide not have children get harassed abit.
of course every parent says they don`t harass
but on this subject they hardly can be called civil.
the most common phrased spoken is selfish
Well, as I'm not a self proclaimed pro-lifer OR pro-choicer, and I'm rather agnostic... All I can say about NOT having children as being selfish is... Overpopulation Much???
Seems to me it's almost more selfish to HAVE children when there are thousands who are being born that are either being put in the system or SHOULD be. We have plenty already...
Well, I can provide an example of the opposite. My wife and I have five children and, as you know, we recently adopted a little girl form Ethiopia. Many in my wife's side of the family called it "selfish" and refused to come to a dinner we had to introduce her to the rest of the family and it has stirred quite alot of angst for sure. There is no communication now between us and those parts of the extended family...sigh.
-
I'm trying to say that there are many children to adopt.
Tried adopting one in this country recently?
It's such a pain that my sister went to China and Russia to adopt her two kids. They pretty much told her and my brother in law that since they're white, and most of the kids available for adoption in the US are black, hispanic, or mixed race, that it would be near impossible for them to adopt one of 'em. Seems like the powers that be frown on whites raising colored babies and go to lengths to prevent it from happening.
We encountered this as well. This is a major reaosn why recently adopted from Ethiopia.
-
I always thought that`s racist
it gives the message that it`s better to keep a child in the system than to have a child raise by white parents.
have you notice not much is said about the lack of nonwhite couples adopting.
In my community I know nobody adopting.
I asked this question of the adoption agency. They said that it is extremely rare for nonwhites to adopt. Any reasons why?
-
There is no communication now between us and those parts of the extended family...sigh.
..and if there were communication between "you and parts of the extended familia", would it be truly worth your time? Values are at such odds here that it seems to me that you haven't lost much. Shame on those who chose to cut off communicating because of their OWN selfish act. To shun or ignore family because of a choice to raise a human being?....sigh, indeed. I would sigh because they "don't get it", Professor.
Good for you and your wife.
The world needs more like you.
-
professor
I`m truely sorry this actrually happened to you
You see that was my next topic
what you just experience is not a rare occurance.
that magic word selfish is so misused
I think you and your wife are doing a great thing.
-
I agree, Professor, it's a wonderful thing you did. And as to the parts of the family that are not accepting, also agree that it might not be worth keeping in contact with that branch of the family, if they don't come around.
My experience with people in my area who are adopting bi-racial children is that it's their grandparents, often, doing the adopting. Sometimes it's not a formal adoption, they get custody because the biological mom or dad is unable, unwilling or unfit to care for the child.
-
I'm trying to say that there are many children to adopt.
Tried adopting one in this country recently?
Nope
It's such a pain that my sister went to China and Russia to adopt her two kids. They pretty much told her and my brother in law that since they're white, and most of the kids available for adoption in the US are black, hispanic, or mixed race, that it would be near impossible for them to adopt one of 'em. Seems like the powers that be frown on whites raising colored babies and go to lengths to prevent it from happening.
Well, I WAS going to say because of overpopulation in the WORLD, but I didn't want to generalize. I don't know what the population is like all over the world. I'm glad your Sister and Brother were able to find a child to love. I AM sorry they had to go around the freekin' planet to do so. That's just stupid. And it's ALSO (okay, imo) EXTREMELY stupid that a white person can't raise a baby of a different race. Isn't that discrimination AND denying a child a happy home?? AAaaaaaaarg!
-
wow thanks seamus
this also brings more questions
is it wrong for couple to decide to never have sex??
<The sexual act - or, the marital act or one-flesh union - is a physical expression of a couple's marriage commitment. In a very real sense, when a couple engages in one-flesh union, they are renewing their wedding vows, an essential component of which is to accept children lovingly from God (cf.
Gen. 1:28, 2:24; Luke 1:38).>
is the willingness to not renew their marriage vows.
this question maybe too involve to get an answer.
I do notice couple who decide not have children get harassed abit.
of course every parent says they don`t harass
but on this subject they hardly can be called civil.
the most common phrased spoken is selfish
Well, as I'm not a self proclaimed pro-lifer OR pro-choicer, and I'm rather agnostic... All I can say about NOT having children as being selfish is... Overpopulation Much???
Seems to me it's almost more selfish to HAVE children when there are thousands who are being born that are either being put in the system or SHOULD be. We have plenty already...
Well, I can provide an example of the opposite. My wife and I have five children and, as you know, we recently adopted a little girl form Ethiopia. Many in my wife's side of the family called it "selfish" and refused to come to a dinner we had to introduce her to the rest of the family and it has stirred quite alot of angst for sure. There is no communication now between us and those parts of the extended family...sigh.
No, Professor, I didn't know. Congratulations on the new girl! Can you tell me how they come to calling it selfish? Have they said what their thinking is? As far as I can tell you've not only done a WONDERFUL thing for this girl, but a wonderful thing for your family as well. Another child being raised in the "Professor" line. I would like to understand how it can be seen as selfish?
-
There is no communication now between us and those parts of the extended family...sigh.
..and if there were communication between "you and parts of the extended familia", would it be truly worth your time? Values are at such odds here that it seems to me that you haven't lost much. Shame on those who chose to cut off communicating because of their OWN selfish act. To shun or ignore family because of a choice to raise a human being?....sigh, indeed. I would sigh because they "don't get it", Professor.
Good for you and your wife.
The world needs more like you.
Seconded!
-
wow thanks seamus
this also brings more questions
is it wrong for couple to decide to never have sex??
<The sexual act - or, the marital act or one-flesh union - is a physical expression of a couple's marriage commitment. In a very real sense, when a couple engages in one-flesh union, they are renewing their wedding vows, an essential component of which is to accept children lovingly from God (cf.
Gen. 1:28, 2:24; Luke 1:38).>
is the willingness to not renew their marriage vows.
this question maybe too involve to get an answer.
I do notice couple who decide not have children get harassed abit.
of course every parent says they don`t harass
but on this subject they hardly can be called civil.
the most common phrased spoken is selfish
Well, as I'm not a self proclaimed pro-lifer OR pro-choicer, and I'm rather agnostic... All I can say about NOT having children as being selfish is... Overpopulation Much???
Seems to me it's almost more selfish to HAVE children when there are thousands who are being born that are either being put in the system or SHOULD be. We have plenty already...
Well, I can provide an example of the opposite. My wife and I have five children and, as you know, we recently adopted a little girl form Ethiopia. Many in my wife's side of the family called it "selfish" and refused to come to a dinner we had to introduce her to the rest of the family and it has stirred quite alot of angst for sure. There is no communication now between us and those parts of the extended family...sigh.
No, Professor, I didn't know. Congratulations on the new girl! Can you tell me how they come to calling it selfish? Have they said what their thinking is? As far as I can tell you've not only done a WONDERFUL thing for this girl, but a wonderful thing for your family as well. Another child being raised in the "Professor" line. I would like to understand how it can be seen as selfish?
They see it as my wife and I somehow needing more love and are bored and so we chose to adopt....Really strange logic to my way of thinking. But, apparently that is the line. They say we shouldn't have done it at our age. We should just wait for grandchildren. Well, we chose differently. With the holidays coming up, it should prove interesting, to say the least.
-
Let me add the LDS perspective to this question.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints generally opposes abortion and birth control but for different reasons. Abortion - and SOME forms of birtth control - actually terminate a life that has begun (however tenuously). We object to abortion on those grounds, but we do recognize that in cases of rape, incest or danger to the mother abortion may be an option.
Birth control is considered a sin, but for a different reason. We have no problem with the idea of sex "fer fun." We do, however, believe that the Lord has commanded us to "be fruitful and multiply." We also believe - uncommon in the Christian world - in the idea of a "pre-existence." We believe that there are babies up there just waiting to be born. Our duty is to bring them to this world. The whole reason we exist on this earth is to have families. Consequently, birth control solely for the purpose of not having children is considered a sin of ommission. The church, in its "Proclamation on the Family" does leave wiggle room for responsible family planning, but permanent sterilization would normally only be considered appropriate in case of medical necessity.
Part of the reason for the ambiguity on the issue of birth control is that methods - and therfore situations - differ. For example, some faiths have no problem with the "rhythm method" since there is no life potentially created. (Of course we all know what they call people who use the rhythm method - parents!) Under our philosophy, that issue is moot. Birth control even under non-abortive circumstances is discouraged. But something like a "morning after" pill or certain IUD devices are intended to keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall. That means a potential life is ended. So condoms, yes - if necessary - but IUDs, no.
Incidentally, in case anyone wonders, nobody is going to get excommunicated from the LDS church simply for using birth control. Like many things, it is a matter of personal choice, but it is discouraged. Even unwarranted abortion is amenable to forgiveness - though it is considered among the most serious offenses against God.
-
Well, as I'm not a self proclaimed pro-lifer OR pro-choicer, and I'm rather agnostic... All I can say about NOT having children as being selfish is... Overpopulation Much???
Seems to me it's almost more selfish to HAVE children when there are thousands who are being born that are either being put in the system or SHOULD be. We have plenty already...
Small problem. Overpopulation is currently not a problem in any nation that composes what was once known as Christiandom. The opposite is. (http://acuf.org/issues/issue58/060422news.asp)
Now, religion is not a topic of particular interest to me, and in general I frown on government interjecting itself into it's citizen's reproductive choices.
Still, you have to ask - what the hell is wrong with a culture that seems bound and determined to cut it's own throat?
The problem isn't that abortion is legal. The problem is a population that's so eager to take advantage of the fact.
-
Now, religion is not a topic of particular
Seems to me that with your screenname that makes as much sense as saying I don't care much for pooches! lol.
The problem isn't that abortion is legal. The problem is a population that's so eager to take advantage of the fact.
Well said.
-
Many in my wife's side of the family called it "selfish" and refused to come to a dinner we had to introduce her to the rest of the family and it has stirred quite alot of angst for sure.
=========================================================================
I suppose that one could call adopting a child from another country and/or race many things, but I can't see how anyone could logically call this "selfish".
I think that people should
-
Many in my wife's side of the family called it "selfish" and refused to come to a dinner we had to introduce her to the rest of the family and it has stirred quite alot of angst for sure.
=============================================
What is the logic behind calling this "selfish"? I suppose one might call adopting a child of a different race or cultural background a number of things, but I can't se where anyone could call this "selfish".
I think anyone should have whatever number of children they can support and raise, and that others should recognize that this is none of their business.
It is no doubt more difficult to raise a child that doesn't look like you, but these days people should be bright enough to figure out that this is unimportant and none of their concern.
-
Now, religion is not a topic of particular
Seems to me that with your screenname that makes as much sense as saying I don't care much for pooches! lol.
Actually, I picked it after I saw someone in another forum call another poster a "religious dick", and I found the double entendre amusing. Does it refer to a religious fellow named Dick? Or somebody who's religiously a dick? Or a religious guy who's being a dick? Kind of a verbal Rubik's cube....
The problem isn't that abortion is legal. The problem is a population that's so eager to take advantage of the fact.
Well said.
Thank you. As I've said, I'm not particularly religious myself, but it's instructive to observe the progress of societies that are, and societies that aren't.
You notice Muslim societies aren't having problems with depopulation. Neither are the pockets of the West where Christianity is still practiced and taken seriously. What they both have in common is faith, and a belief they have a way of life worth preserving. And they're willing to fight for it! While they're frequently dismissed as ignorant yahoo's, the fact is it's the secular liberals who are dying off. Apparently Darwin doesn't show any particular favoritism to his fan club.....