New ultimate Pro-Life links page.

[victim soul]

thanks.

[cpforlife.org]

Graymatter!

You are now aboard!

[TradicalRC]

I never claimed that there was a commandment to have children.

Christ was critical of divorce and backed up his criticism by saying that that was not how it was at the beginning.
God joined together the man and the women so that they become one flesh; not merely spiritually but physically in the form of a child. God also said to them "Be fruitful and multiply without any addendums to the effect of unless you can't afford it or the world becomes overpopulated.

Every church supported banning of contraception until the thirties. We largely have Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood to thank for popularizing first contraception and then of course, abortion.

I consider you one of the good guys TC, and regret having to be on the opposite side of the fence from you but your version of Christian morality really goes back only a few decades, which IMHO, should raise a red flag however small.

One of the things that I am noticing that distinguishes the Protestants from the Catholics when both are of a conservative stripe is that the protestant emphasis on personalism and individualism would lead to the type of thinking that would allow sex to be purely for pleasure and despite the distinctions you may make, it also allows gay, divorced and pro-Choice "Christians" to justify their interpretations of Scripture as well.

My bottom line is in the totality of Scripture do you honestly come away with a God of contraception? I do not. God is a God of the living. He loves life. I see it as a gift not to be thrown away or withheld from my children.

[TradicalRC]

Excellent article, doctor.

[hocndoc]

RE post #222, 1 Timothy 2:15 is not mention of a duty to procreate, otherwise we end up with the dissonances with the Scriptures which I pointed out.

Re post #237 Personally, I follow the restrictions of Acts 15 as the basics, after the fact of Salvation.

There is no sexual immorality within the marriage bed of a man and woman. True contraception, if agreed upon by the husband and wife, is not immoral within marriage. Abortion is killing, so it cannot be moral except in extreme matters of life and death. Sex outside of marriage is immoral whether there is contraception or the gender of the participants.

There is no relevance to non-Scriptural references to who agreed that contraception is immoral and when they did so or when they changed their minds. It also took a long time (and some inter- and intra- denominational differences, even to the point of war) for some of the children of God to recognize republics and democracies as superior to hereditary Kingships and that slavery is immoral.

Part of the reason that earlier Christians had with contraception was shown in Maximilian's quote of Calvin. The belief was that the sperm contained the child and that the womb was simply the place the child grew. We know more about conception, now. It is just as mistaken to consider the child begun at intercourse as it is to believe he starts at quickening.

(I'm writing from a slow connection at my mother's, so please forgive me if I don't respond in a timely manner and mix two responses into one post.)

[hocndoc]

I've always understood that the husband and wife become one flesh at marriage, not at the birth of their child. Compare with 1 Cor 6, I think, and Paul's discussion about joining the Body of Christ to a prostitute.

[Polycarp IV]

There is no sexual immorality within the marriage bed of a man and woman.

I disagree.

True contraception, if agreed upon by the husband and wife, is not immoral within marriage.

I disagree.

Abortion is killing, so it cannot be moral except in extreme matters of life and death.

I disagree. Abortion is killing. Period. No exceptions, no compromises, no apologies.

Lets just agree to disagree and work together on those things we agree upon (geez, after your post, I'm not even sure what they are now.)

[Polycarp IV]

Thank you!

[TexasCowboy]

I, too, regret that we're on the opposite side of the fence.
We're Christians arguing about doctrine, and I've always refused to do that.
I have many Catholic friends and many Jewish friends, and I've always stayed away from debates about doctrine. I think everyone has the duty to choose their own.
I love to debate the interpretation of Scripture so that I may learn, but when it entails the development of doctrine, I will not do that.

I've traveled all over the world, and I've spent a lot of time in countries like Africa and Asia.
I've seen the poverty and squalor and suffering caused by overpopulation.
I can't believe that a loving God would prefer that for His people.
It's not for a matter of convenience that I choose to say the contraception is permitted by God.
It's from a study of the Scriptures and the searching of my soul with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

The bottom line here is that we're trying to save the lives of babies.
If you prefer to equate contraception to abortion that's certainly your perogative. I'm not trying to force doctrine.
For me, I will continue to view abortion as a separate issue - the murder of our unborn children with "unborn" meaning from the time of conception.

[TradicalRC]

They do become one flesh at marriage. Again, there ought not be a breach in marriage, congugal love, conception, and child bearing. These all are part of a continuum, and to introduce a breach into it is to usurp what belongs to God.

Original sin all over again.

[TradicalRC]

God does not hold that democracy is a superior form of government whether any or all of his children think so.

I think God best expressed his view of all government in 1 Samuel 8.

One of THE problems with Christianity today is that "Christians" are following a personal philosophy or ideology and then using whatever Scripture backs it up, all the while ignoring that Scripture which is troublesome. The original definition of a heretic was one who picks and chooses which Scripture that they'll observe.

[TradicalRC]

I did not realize that we were arguing doctrine. What criteria do you use in distinguishing the doctrinal from the non-doctrinal parts of the debate?

As for your view that a loving God would not condemn people to suffering that you perceive overpopulation to be the cause of: that argument is strikingly similar to the argument that gay "Christians" put forth that they could not believe that a loving God would have given them this "gift" of homosexuality and then "condemn" them to a life of celibacy.

Like it or not, your loving God does allow suffering. It is a by product of free will and its misuse, sin. He expects us to follow His Son and live in Truth and Love. He does not expect us to engineer a this-worldly Utopia where no one suffers or starves as much as you and I would both want that. It is quite possible that that objective might well be acheived if those who called themselves Christian actually submitted single-heartedly to Him and His Word.

Christ did not come into the world to make it safe for democracy or to free the slaves or to create civil rights or the perfect egalitarian society, however laudable those who call themselves Christian might considerthese things.

[TexasCowboy]

"What criteria do you use in distinguishing the doctrinal from the non-doctrinal parts of the debate?"

Your interpretation of the Scriptures (and I emphasize "Your" because it should not be the interpretation of the Pope or the Pastor of the First Baptist Church) forms the doctrine in which you believe.
If I'm talking to a Jewish friend I can trace the roots of Jesus Christ all the way through the Old Testament, and my interpretation tells me that the Messiah has already arrived and He will come again.
My Jewish friend will read the same Scriptures and come to the conclusion that He has not come.
I will debate the interpretations of the various Scriptures, but not the conclusion which comprises the doctrine.
That is for each one of us to decide with the help of the Holy Spirit.

To the best of my ability I have debated about the interpretations of Scripture you use to support your position.
I would never say that the Catholic Church is wrong about their doctrine concerning contraceptives, but I would say that for me they have reached the wrong conclusion.

It is a giant stretch to equate the misery I have witnessed from overpopulation to the free will activities of homosexuals.
The thousands of children dying on the streets have no choice in the matter. They were brought into this world with no one to care for them.
Gays always have a choice, and it's not celibacy unless they choose it.

Of course, God allows suffering, but it's for a purpose - always - and it's according to His plan.
To think that the only time we suffer is when we sin is asinine.
My daughter has MS. Do you think God made her suffer because she sinned?
No, that's ridiculous. She's about as close to sinless as anyone I've ever known.
He had a plan for her, and it included her disease.
As a counter point, there are people living in our society and doing well who have broken every Commandment laid down by God. He has a plan for them, too.

[Indie]

Not to take anything away from yours, so I'll say here is the SECOND most comprehensive pro-life page on the net, constructed by yours truly. :)) RESCUE
I think you'll enjoy it very much.

[kegler4]

"The TRUTH might be peculiar to you, but its still the TRUTH."

No, it is the truth to you and to some Catholics. I am not Catholic and while I consider the Pope a good man, he is merely a man and his viewpoints hold little sway over me.

[Polycarp IV]

You obviously did not read the article I wrote. No quotes from any popes in it. Go back and read the essay this time.

[Indefens]

Very nice, Indie. You have a few links on that page that I might want to glean. :-)

Hey I didn't get the most comprehensive pro-life links page on the net without a little cut 'n paste...

[.30Carbine]

Silent No More

It may be on your very extensive list already, but I didn't see it. I think it would be a good addition.

[prolifefem]

Marc mentioned "organizations like Feminists for Life which advocate contraception." This is a complete (though probably not intentional) misrepresentation. Feminists for Life is neutral regarding non-abortifacient contraception, neither advocating nor opposing it.

In fact, to quote FFL directly:

"Since FFL's mission is based on life beginning at conception, there is no FFL policy on contraception except when it presents a threat to a woman's health. Some FFL members support the use of contraception as long as there is no abortifacient effect, while others oppose it. Some oppose all or some forms of contraception for health reasons; others prefer natural methods to plan a family; and still others want to incorporate new medical technologies that track a woman's fertility to be used in conjunction with natural family planning methods. FFL's mission begins at conception, not before.

"Our membership has a broad spectrum of opinion that reflects the diversity of opinions among the public.

"In the time of the early American feminists, sex between married couples was not always consensual, and many women bore 20 or more children, of whom only half survived. In order to space children, most feminist foremothers promoted 'voluntary motherhood,' whereby women would participate in the decision to have children.

"FFL focuses on the problems that women face during a pregnancy, planned or unplanned." (The American Feminist, vol. 10 no. 1, Spring 2003, p. 16)

As for being "100% pro-life," Feminists for Life comes closer than many of the other groups that participate in the March, because FFL opposes all forms of physical and emotional violence, including abortion, infanticide, child abuse and domestic violence, sexual exploitation, capital punishment, and euthanasia (c.f. the statement of principles in The American Feminist, vol. 10 no. 1, Spring 2003, p. 4). Many other abortion opponents support capital punishment.