Posted on 04/20/2006 4:48:53 PM PDT by Coleus
Natural Family Planning would have been the moral choice in this situation, not sterilization. NFP is safe, effective, and it has absolutely no side effects. Also, it makes both the husband and the wife assume responsibility for their fertility. Unlike sterilization and contraception, NFP does not make the woman renounce her fertility just for the sake of being a sex object.
And what do you think I used for BC, and yet here I sit with 3 kids.Struggling to feed and clothe them as a single mother,I doubt God is going to hold my decision againsts me. There is just too much at stake to risk another pregnancy.
"Natural Family Planning would have been the moral choice in this situation, not sterilization..."
And in all charity, that was uncalled for.
Reading a book about Mother Angelica right now, I mean WOW, what a woman she is. I am so amazed by her childhood, the way that she grew up in a neighborhood reminds me of the "Godfather" movie, seriously. Rita Rizzo was her name. God bless her always.
I rarely watch TV, but I did watch EWTN for the first time in a looooong time a couple of weeks ago. They had a re-run from "Mother Angelica Live." It was the first time I had seen her speaking on religious topics.
WOW is right.
The is no biblical injunction against contraception. It's a church-made law by a (supposedly) celibate priesthood. That was my original point and it is still my point.
"As a Protestant, I'm glad my clergyman is married and has a family, so he can more fully understand his work and the people with whom he works."
Yep! He can possibly understand his work more fully in the divorced area, also, as many protestant clergymen are divorced and remarried.
Not within my household.
"So this is not a Catholic only issue."
When we took our NFP classes it was thru a Baptist Church! The message is getting to some! :o)
Man cannot create life; no power on earth can guarantee the birth of a baby. The key to that decision is in the hands of God alone. He is the third Partner in the conception of every child. If you block or prevent that a couple is saying that they do not want God in their marriage.
_________________________________________
Well said...
NFP works if you're disciplined about it. My wife and I have used it for nearly six years without any issues.
Just because you have a male M. D. who has never experienced menstruation, does that mean that you would not take his advice about cramps, etc.????
Your argument is empty.
Your point is without merit.
Your citation and your analysis is without sense.
Just like the prohibitions against polygamy, slavery, and abortion, the ban against contraception is based primarily upon reason and natural law.
It's a church-made law by a (supposedly) celibate priesthood.
Historically, opposition to contraception wasn't just a Catholic phenomena. Every mainstream protestant denomination prohibited contraception until 1930 when the Anglicans decreed it to be morally permissible in only the most dire circumstances. Most protestant denominations continued their prohibitions well into the 1950's and 1960's.
The exception does not negate the general rule. Celibate men are in control of the Catholic Church and as such have little real life experience on issues of marriage and children yet presume to pontificate about these things to the rest of us. That's why Paul's advise to Titus is so important, IMO. He advised Titus to find godly older women to instruct the younger women on these issues, which is how it should be. Single, celibate men should be careful about presuming to tell women how to run their households.
Talk about quoting the Bible out of context. Onan's sin has nothing to do with "contraception" as we understand it and about refusing to take care of his late brother's widow. He wanted to pretend he was doing his brotherly duty to Er. Onan sexually abuse Tamar (in a manner of speaking) because he didn't have the guts to simply tell Judah, "No. I won't take Tamar." It was about Onan's greed and his desire to save face that brought about G-d's wrath.
To interpret this text to apply to a married couple's mutual decision to not have children or to delay having children is spurious at best.
David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible elaborates further on this point.
a. According to the custom of levirate marriage (later codified into law in Deuteronomy 25:5-10), if a man died before providing sons to his wife, it was the duty of his brothers to marry her and to give her sons. The child would be considered the son of the brother who had died, because really the living brother was acting in his place.
i. This was done so the dead brother's name would be carried on; but also, so the widow would have children who could support her. Apart from this, she would likely live the rest of her life as a destitute widow.
b. Onan refused to take this responsibility seriously. He was more than happy to use Tamar for his own sexual gratification, but he did not want to give Tamar a son he would have to support, but would be considered to be the son of Er.
c. Onan pursued sex as only a pleasurable experience. If he really didn't want to father a child by Tamar, why did he have sex with her at all? He refused to fulfill his obligation to his dead brother and Tamar.
d. Many Christians have used this passage as a proof-text against masturbation. Indeed, masturbation has been called "onanism." However, this does not seem to be the case here. Whatever Onan did, he was not masturbating! This was not a sin of masturbation, but a sin of refusing to care for his brother's widow by giving her offspring, and of a selfish use of sex.
Above quote from David Guzik's Commentaries on the Bible courtesy of Studylight.org. Genesis 38 commentary
Read Tamar's excellent analysis for why Scripture doesn't speak to the issue of contraception at all. If reason and natural law are the basis for this prohibition what do reason and natural law say about the perfectly reasonable decision not to expend ourselves as brood mares and impoverish ourselves trying to raise 12-14 children? Who has standing to tell us what sort of life we will make for ourselves and the children we choose to have? A celibate priest with no scriptural basis for his decision? I think not my friend. There is no natural law basis for the decision to waste ourselves physically or economically raising countless children we need not have and neither one's neighbor nor a priest has the right to even suggest the nature of the loving relationship a couple may have.
See, this is why it's so nice that we all get to decide how to worship in this country, right? I don't have to go to your church, and you don't have to go to mine. :)
What was uncharitable about my post? I did not personally attack her. I used the passive voice. I'm sorry but direct sterilization is intrinsically evil and is never justified.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.