[imardmd1]

How can any adherence to something that can minimize the possibility of pregnancy in marriage be anything but selfish? Even if temporary abstinence was to prevent the likely death of an unhealthy potential mother, how can even her safety not be considered “selfish?”

If you're blaming the 1930 Lambeth Conference for this, don't.

Last sentence in Article 15 of the Resolutions:

"The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience."

[HiTech RedNeck]

That was indeed wise for Lambeth to have noted. It’s extremely sad to see that it fell by the wayside.

We should be pro-life in soul most of all. Then we should let that be expressed in our bodies. Bodily murder is a ghastly thing. It is deeply disrespectful for God. It’s not for nothing that in the Noahide covenant, God singled it out among evil acts as being punishable by blood. Delving into deeper history, however, one notes that the wicked Cain was not killed (even though he was marked). And even today we allow physical killings or are more lenient towards them based on certain circumstances.

Christ, interestingly enough, equated causeless anger with murder. And it’s worth delving into that issue. I’d say any killing that takes place for causeless anger is a murder. If you’re angry at the possibility of, as our dear Obama put it, “being punished with a baby” then to kill that baby is a murder.