Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: IronJack; All

“How can a supposed minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ hide behind such cowardly euphemisms as “reproductive rights” and “voluntary contraception”? “

I really wish you would help me out in this subject matter! Am having an discussion with some protestants on this very topic. They believe married couples should use contraception as long as it does not kill the fetus. Their argument is “people who can’t afford them should not have them”. I said that most of the time people are spending their money on material possessions and not children. They say that since contraception is not listed in scripture this is for the family not church to decide. Oh gee, did God not say “go and populate the Earth”?


20 posted on 10/28/2011 9:27:31 AM PDT by Morgana ("Since using your shampoo my hair has come alive!" ----Medusa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: Morgana

My post did not address all forms of contraception, just the cavalier view of abortion in that role. What God meant by “Go forth and populate the Earth” is subject to interpretation. “Thou shalt not kill” seems pretty straightforward. And while Satan may be able to deceive the temporal powers with his rhetorical sleight-of-hand, there is little doubt that abortion is murder. How a proclaimed minister of the Gospel can endorse that practice is a mystery to me. And why anyone sincere in their faith would follow one of these apostates is even more confounding.


21 posted on 10/28/2011 9:38:10 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: Morgana

It is a question of intent. If the intent is not to have children in order to pursue financial gain, or pursue a career (a “me-first” attitude), then you need to rethink your values; why did you get married in the first place? If the intent is to delay for whatever reason (school, medical concerns, etc.), then perhaps it is okay.
It is also a question of the type of birth control. Abortifacient birth controls are certainly not the best since they can prevent implantation, while non-abortifacient birth controls just prevent fertilization. In general, if a church is going to be okay with birth control and still be Biblical, it will say that preventing fertilization is okay, but once the egg has been fertilized it should be in God’s hands.
As for the statement that “People who cannot afford them should not have them,” there are 2 ways to take it. Are they saying that they don’t believe God will provide for them if they have a child? Alternatively, are those who say that “God will provide” means that they should have all the kids they can putting God to the test by having more children than they can afford to provide for?


22 posted on 10/28/2011 10:50:16 AM PDT by Conservaliberty (If Paul and Palin were running mates, would their foreign policies be like matter and anti-matter?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson