So, nature is ok for one instance but in the other if you have to go artificial it's ok? Got hypocrisy?
I was expecting a line like "if that's the way your were born then that was God's plan for you" type of statement.
Because obviously you don't want to stop God's natural process when it comes to birth control, so why would it be ok to interfere in the other case?
I'm not sure what you think "hypocrisy" means. We've got a consistent philosophy.
I was expecting a line like "if that's the way your were born then that was God's plan for you" type of statement.
Maybe when you think about our consistent philosophy it will all make sense.
Because obviously you don't want to stop God's natural process when it comes to birth control, so why would it be ok to interfere in the other case?
When someone cuts their arm and it bleeds all over the place, we don't let it go cause that is "natural." No, we sew it up and stop the bleeding.
If someone is born with asthma, we don't say "tough luck, you were born with crappy lungs." No, we adminster medicine.
We have this idea, this consistent philosophy about how the body is supposed to work. When it malfunctions, we fix it, to the best of our ability. When it is working normally, we leave it alone.
Can you apply these principles and see how they cause my answers?
Fertility is not a disease that requires medication to counteract it. So trying to control conception by chemical means is not "medicine." It is not curing a malfunction of the body.
On the other hand, if a woman is having difficulty getting or staying pregnant because of some malfunction, then it is perfectly licit to give her hormones or medicines to help her body work the way it is supposed to.
See how it all makes sense?
SD