Contraception

[_JS]

I wanted to address this, if for no other reason than to provide some clarity, which was sorely lacking (through my own fault) in another thread.

Note that nearly all Christian Churches (I don't want to say all because there may have been a stray denomination of Protestantism or two) were completely against contraception until the 1930's and it was really the 1960's when the Protestant denominations reversed their prior stances and either fully accepted birth control or chose "individual conscience" which is another way of accepting it.

The question is, what changed?

Christians throughout early Christianity and even the early Reformationists knew of it as the sin of Onanism: Genesis 38:7-10.

The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). Yet, God killed Onan as punishment for his crime (note that this is one of the few times God kills a human without any go-between). This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. Jewish and Christian theologians had always considered Onan's crime as a violation of natural law, even separate from that of self-pleasure as Leviticus separates (15:16-20 - which discusses ritual purification).

The natural law that Onan violated was one of the earliest forms of birth control, coitus interruptus.

By the way, contraceptives are nothing new and neither is the Christian attitude that they should be forbidden.

Augistine wrote in 419:

I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility.

Martin Luther:

The exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.

John Calvin:

The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.

John Wesley:

Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.

Note: quotes taken from Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control

My question is, what changed in the mid 20th century that 1900 years of Christian and Jewish teaching was suddenly reversed?

[The_Professor]

cultural dyamics, lead by emboldened atheististic and secular movements, influenced the chuches, particularly the mainstream ones that tend to drift Scripture to fit revised cultural norms.

[_JS]

cultural dyamics, lead by emboldened atheististic and secular movements, influenced the chuches, particularly the mainstream ones that tend to drift Scripture to fit revised cultural norms.

So you disagree with Plane and Sirs view on contraception? Interesting.

Professor, do you think the acceptance of contraceptives has changed the attitude towards abortion?

[The_Professor]

Sorry, what ARE Sirs and Plane's view on contraception? I must've missed that. I've been really busy adding and addition to our home this past few weeks. And, we are in the process of an interniitonal adoption, a very laborious affiar.

[_JS]

Sorry, what ARE Sirs and Plane's view on contraception? I must've missed that. I've been really busy adding and addition to our home this past few weeks. And, we are in the process of an interniitonal adoption, a very laborious affiar.

In fairness, everyone (not just Sirs and Plane) should state their opinion in their words on this matter. I'd be interested to read them all (though clearly it is geared more towards Christians, but as always, anyone may respond).

By the way, congratulations on the adoption.

[The_Professor]

I only have a few moments before I have to go out and lay some new drywall ("I'm getting too OLD for this!"). I briefly scanned the other thread and found their positions, I believe.

That thread did tend to wander quite a bit, but...

As is typcial, Plane and I agree, I believe so anyway. It IS interesting how often we tend ot agreeo nthese matters, considering our interconnected relationship (me being married to his ex-wife).

I will briefly attempt to answer your question, JS:

Abortion:
I AM pro-life, so much so that I cannot envision voting for a political candidate who is not. For exampl,e if the Republicans stnad up a guy who is NOT pro-life, I will do what many will do, I will ,for the first time in my voting life, sit out the upcoming Presidential eleciton.

Birth control:
I agree with Plane that it all comes down to what you mean here. For example, the reason I oppose the "morning after pill" is that is is basically abortion. Why?

<here it comes>

Because life begins at conception.

THerefore, any method of birth control that destroys the embryo after the egg and sperm have met, is tantamount to abortion. An example would be an IUD.

What churches state or decry from the pulpit is important to me, particulaythe denominations I feel are closer to conservative Scriptural inrerpretations, but I make up my own mind, in prayer, as to what is proper and just. As Plane said, Papal statements are perhaps cool to note, but not the final say in the matter, to me at least. But then again, neither is a statment from the General Assembly of the Assemblies of God, my present denomination.

Did that present my position?

[_JS]

That is fair, but you and I disagree.

This is not based on what Pope Paul VI has said, which in essence was just a summary of what had been the Church's stance for 1,968 years (give or take 4 years).

What you describe are abortifacient contraceptives, which I agree, should not be accepted by Christians.

Yet, that was not Onan's sin. The problem was with contraception full stop.

The problem of contraception is social and very destructive. Roughly sixty percent of women who receive abortions each year have said that their contraceptives failed. Also, note what contraceptives do: prevent pregnancy - i.e. children. The other main reason for contraception is to prevent sexually-transmitted disease. Socially we've placed children and pregnancy alongside herpes, genital warts, and HIV as negative effects of intercourse.

So family size has dwindled to where having a large family is looked upon as an oddity. Many married couples see children as a burden and choose lifestyles that exclude them or at the least, minimizes their interaction with their children. Individualism is the name of the game. What gives me self-fulfillment? What choices can I make for me?

And one of those choices is contraception, which is the sin of Onanism and at its heart - one of the most selfish decisions one can make.

That is my position.

[Lanya]

My position is that people should make up their own minds as to whether they will have children, and how many, and what contraceptives to use.   There's not even a question in my mind that God wants us to use our talents, and to not hide our light under a bushel.  Which many women have been doing lo these many years, because they had no choice in the matter: no contraceptives,  no abortion, no choice period. 

[kimba1]

The problem of contraception is social and very destructive. Roughly sixty percent of women who receive abortions each year have said that their contraceptives failed. Also, note what contraceptives do: prevent pregnancy - i.e. children. The other main reason for contraception is to prevent sexually-transmitted disease. Socially we've placed children and pregnancy alongside herpes, genital warts, and HIV as negative effects of intercourse.

60%
that`s abit high
I know a ton of people who got unplanned kids and not once have I heard the contraceptives didn`t work.
it`s more likely they needed something to blame.
remember people prefer not to use contraceptives at all.
it really takes the edge off the fun.

and it can`t be too much of a deal about people not having kids since I don`t recall that many people volunteering getting vasectomies or hysterectomy.

[The_Professor]

That is fair, but you and I disagree.

This is not based on what Pope Paul VI has said, which in essence was just a summary of what had been the Church's stance for 1,968 years (give or take 4 years).

What you describe are abortifacient contraceptives, which I agree, should not be accepted by Christians.

Yet, that was not Onan's sin. The problem was with contraception full stop.

The problem of contraception is social and very destructive. Roughly sixty percent of women who receive abortions each year have said that their contraceptives failed. Also, note what contraceptives do: prevent pregnancy - i.e. children. The other main reason for contraception is to prevent sexually-transmitted disease. Socially we've placed children and pregnancy alongside herpes, genital warts, and HIV as negative effects of intercourse.

So family size has dwindled to where having a large family is looked upon as an oddity. Many married couples see children as a burden and choose lifestyles that exclude them or at the least, minimizes their interaction with their children. Individualism is the name of the game. What gives me self-fulfillment? What choices can I make for me?

And one of those choices is contraception, which is the sin of Onanism and at its heart - one of the most selfish decisions one can make.

That is my position.

JS, perhaps  I am somehwat confused by your position here. Yes, contraceptives have indeed changed the culture, for both good and ill. The Glloria Steinem crowd said it no longer makes women subject to men, but that is mostly false. This supposed cultural inferiority is so much more broader and deeper than just the use of more effective contraceptives.

And, I do agree that contraceptives have radically changed some of the marital roles, but aren't you accusing tehcnology? After all, it is technology that has provided for this change, just as heart transplant technology has changed a landscape there.

By "contraceptives", I assume we primarily are referring to the Pill, since it is the msot effective?

I agree that family size has dwindled, but it is not clear to me that you can definitively link that to the Pill. Perhaps it is part of the puzzle but the general afluence of society is the major culprit, I would posit.

[sirs]

Abortion:
I AM pro-life, so much so that I cannot envision voting for a political candidate who is not. For exampl,e if the Republicans stnad up a guy who is NOT pro-life, I will do what many will do, I will ,for the first time in my voting life, sit out the upcoming Presidential eleciton.

Birth control:
I agree with Plane that it all comes down to what you mean here. For example, the reason I oppose the "morning after pill" is that is is basically abortion. Why?

Because life begins at conception.

THerefore, any method of birth control that destroys the embryo after the egg and sperm have met, is tantamount to abortion. An example would be an IUD.

Couldn't have answered it better Professor.  Not sure what Js as referring to when he referenced how you, Plane, & I disagree on this

[kimba1]

on the matter of family size

the real questions is how healthy can this really be for the mom to have 8+ kids
ex. bonanza every single son had a different dead mom.
yeah it`s a tv show,but the reality is it is fairly common for women to die giving birth
I know of many close calls.
I`m pretty sure it`s not exactly safe for alot of women to be pregnant that many times.

[sirs]

on the matter of family size  the real questions is how healthy can this really be for the mom to have 8+ kids

I swear to God, I just came back from vacation, where our local van guide let us in on the fact that she was the 23rd of 24 sibblings, the last girl.  WOW   And they weren't a wealthy family, they lived off the land, fished from the ocean, hunted in the hills, even used a multitude of plants, herbs, and soil for medications and treatments for various physical/medical problems.  It was funny how whe would frequently point to locals along our route and say "that's my cousin.....that's my nephey....that's my cousin.....that's another cousin"   

[Plane]

I thought that Onan had refused a direct order , that is pretty serious when the order comes from God , whether the order was about procreation or whatever.



I find that Wicipiedia agrees with me even if Augistine doesn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onan

I think that reading the scripture by itself supports this view , even if several famos commentators afterwards think otherwise.



How Tamar finally does solve her problem and gets pregnanant is interesting , one wonders if Augistine,Martin Luther,John Calvin and John Wesley found Tamar's solution as instructive as Onan's error?

[gipper]

From a time of ignorance (1968 years ago, give or take four years), some posit eternal wisdom. From a time when propagation was needed, some telescope forward the same rules for a time of human saturation. From a time of primitive-to-nonexisting science, some attempt to bind the human mind and spirit with arcanities from bygone years. From a time when sex was mysterious, we project forward into a modern enlightened time  benighted notions that bedevil our humanity. From a time when sex was a duty, nay, a chore, some try to perpetuate it as a burden in an age when learning, experience and the needs of society celebrate its naturalness as a regular and integral part of human life, essential in its exercise not its repression.