60% of women having unplanned children used birth control. Here's why it doesn't work.

Note: "Combined" oral contraceptive pills combine estrogen-based drugs with abortifacients. So without "undetected miscarriages" (i.e., dead babies), this rate would be higher.

Contraceptive Sponge: 24-32% (depending on whether the woman had been previously pregnant)

> An 18% failure rate does NOT mean that only 18% of women who use this method will ever get pregnant. It means that it reduces pregnancies 82%. So if a women would normally get pregnant after an average of three months without using a condom, she will now get pregnant after only sixteen months.

> Even presuming failure rates are completely independent, using a male condom with a contraceptive sponge combined is still THREE times LESS effective than modern NFP. (15% * 32% is 4.8%, compared to 1.6%)

Now, I believe that you should consider "typical-use" failure rates. But a lot of people reading this are probably jumping out of their seats to deny that condoms have a 18% failure rate. But the "perfect use" failure rate is still higher than the typical-use failure rate for modern NFP, and still three times higher than perfect-use NFP. And I believe that "perfect use" is completely unrealistic: the male partner has to hold the condom on with his hand while he does a one-hand pushup over his partner. And no double dipping without showering between acts!

Also worth noting, the standard-days rhythm method, carefully used, has a failure rate LOWER than the typical-use condoms, plan B, contraceptive sponges, combined diaphragm and spermicide, Nuva Ring, or combined oral-use contraception, and even perfectly used contraceptive sponges, cervical caps, diaphragms, Plan B, or common applications of spermicide.

So why are so many people so convinced that artificial contraception is necessary to prevent overpopulation?

I believe the problem is this: NFP reminds people of the need for responsibility. But modern sexuality is all about compulsivity. What artificial contraception provides

I just showed you what the punishment was for refusing offspring to the dead brother's wife. Its public humiliation. See Deuteronomy 25:5. Therefore, taking Onan's life was not because he refused to fulfill the Levirate law. For that he would have simply been publicly humiliated. No, taking Onan's life was for coitus interuptus, and EVERY Christian until 1930 agreed that was the case. Since all of Christianity has been unanimous up till now about the immorality of contraception, the onus is on the innovators, those preaching this new gospel, to somehow PROVE that all Christians up till 1930 were incorrect in their interpretation of the Onan incident. That you have not done because it cannot be done.

The public "punishment" for refusing to raise up a firstborn son for your dead brother wasn't discussed until Deuteronomy. It's possible that this remedy, of sorts, hadn't been devised when Onan was dealt with in his disobedience to Judah. More than likely, Onan resented having to share his inheritance with a child that would be genetically his, but would be the heir of his brother. It's of note, also, that Onan had sex with Tamar many times but always withdrawing to avoid her pregnancy. He was using her like a prostitute instead of a wife and family member. Jesus' lineage came through the house of Judah. From http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p162.html:

The sin of Onan thus has nothing whatsoever to do with masturbation other than the dubious link of wasting sperm. Onan’s sin was covetousness and theft. He disobeyed his father and the laws of God. He thus broke the first, fifth, seventh and tenth commandments. Breach of one commandment breaches the law entire.

It was to be in Judah’s line through Tamar that Messiah would come. Thus Tamar was central to this matter. She was also without support in the family and so placed herself in a position where Judah could fulfil the vow he had made to her and which vow he failed to honour.

Tamar placed Judah in a position where he committed incest with her through his own weakness. He was thus forced to honour his duty to her under the law. From this union came the twins, Pharez and Zarah. Both Pharez (meaning breach) and Zarah (meaning a rising of light, Offspring or Dawn) together with their mother Tamar are mentioned in the genealogy of Messiah in Matthew 1:3.

Regardless, show me ANYWHERE else in Scripture that God condemns "coitus interruptus". You can't..it's not discussed. From the site http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2205/what-exactly-was-the-sin-of-onan, I found this interesting explanation:

The death of Er (see note 1 below) without a son makes Onan subject to what is called the levirate law (note 2). Although the law isn't specifically mentioned until much later in Deuteronomy 25:5, it was very ancient, predating the point at which the Pentateuch was written down (note 3).

Marrying your brother's wife is forbidden in biblical law, specifically Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21. However, there is an exception if your brother dies without having had a son. In that case, a man is obligated to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law to give his dead brother a son, who becomes the brother's heir. Deuteronomy 25:5-10 describes a way for the brother to decline this responsibility, but presumably at the time of the story of Onan, that legal mechanism wasn't known.

Today levirate marriages are rare. Traditional Ashkenazic Jews faced with a brother who's married, childless, and dead use the Deuteronomic ritual to get out of it. Most Reform and Conservative Jews ignore it altogether. Among Sephardic Jews, one still finds an occasional levirate marriage.

Back to the story. Having no legal means of avoiding his brotherly duty, Onan flatly refuses to do it. He doesn't object to sex with his brother's wife; he just doesn't want to get her with child. We don't know why except that the child "would not count as his." Perhaps he lacked a sense of responsibility to the dead. Perhaps he realized that, with Er dead, he would get half his father's estate, but if Er had an heir, he would only get one-third. So he spilled his seed on the ground. The question is: what exactly does this mean? Religious leaders have advanced different interpretations over the centuries, mostly to justify societal mores.

It's often difficult to establishing what sex practices various writers meant because they used euphemisms--there wasn't a technical sexual vocabulary until fairly recently. Also, the authors of commentaries didn't want to give readers ideas by being too explicit--the "above all, don't put beans in your ear!" syndrome.

The earliest interpretations were straightforward. What Onan had done was dishonor his dead brother and shirk his obligations. Exactly how he frustrated the purpose of levirate marriage was irrelevant. The text emphasizes the social or legal setting, with Judah describing what Onan has to do and why. The plain reading is that Onan's sin was refusal to provide his dead brother with an heir.

When religious authorities try to legislate morality, however, the simple meaning of the text is rarely satisfactory. By the rabbinic period (around 100 BC to 300 AD), levirate marriage was no longer widely practiced. Rabbis and early Christian fathers sought other explanations for Onan's sin, focusing more on the sexual act itself, the spilling of the seed. Jews and Christians adopted sharply different interpretations.

The rabbis interpreted Onan's transgression as birth control through coitus interruptus. (In a wonderful euphemism, the Jewish commentator Rashi calls this "threshing within, winnowing without.") They decided what Onan had done was wasteful but not a severe sin; the punishment should be left to God. More generally, the rabbis recognized that intercourse did not always result in pregnancy, and that there could be a purpose to intercourse beyond simple reproduction, namely pleasure.

The Christian church ultimately took a different stance. After four centuries of competition with groups now considered heretical, the Christian church determined that man's sexual duty was to procreate and replenish the earth, period. Sex for pleasure was weakness, if not outright sinful.

While the Onan story was a factor, the driving force behind Christianity's evolving attitude toward sex was the New Testament, coupled with the pessimistic certainty that the end of the world was imminent. In the 5th century, St Augustine wrote that while sex is essential to procreation and thus good, sin has corrupted human passion, so copulation for pleasure alone is immoral.

The female role in reproduction was poorly understood--people thought men did the important part, namely planting the seed, and the woman was just the flower pot. Hence, spilling seed (loss of semen) was a grievous sin. This attitude emerged after Cummean, an Irish abbott of the 7th century, set forth penances for various sexual sins. Theodore of Tarsus, also in the 7th century, distinguished onanism from masturbation--he felt onanism was a form of contraception, not just self-pleasuring.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) wrote extensively about sexual subjects; his thinking dominated Christian teaching for centuries. First, he taught that any sexual activity that did not lead to procreation was deviant, even within marriage. Sex without procreation was lust, directed solely at venereal pleasure. Other sexual sins included adultery, rape, and incest.

Second, he set up a category of four "sins against nature" or "unnatural vices." These are considered more sinful than illicit sex, because they violate the laws of nature as well as the laws of society and the Church. In order from least to worst sinful:

The term "sodomy" was used interchangeably with "sins against nature." All such sins were lumped under the category of "onanism." Peter Cantor, in the 12th century, had equated sodomy with the sin of Onan because a sodomite "spilled his seed upon the earth." Sodomy was defined as sexual acts between persons of the same sex, and also "semination in a vessel not ordained for it." St. Antonius (1391-1451) used so many euphemisms that we're not always sure what he was talking about. He used sodomy and onanism interchangeably as "sins against nature" to describe a great variey of sexual activities.

Christian hostility to sex survived all sorts of religious and social upheavals. After the Protestant reformation, both Calvinists and Lutherans condemned onanism. When the Spanish explorers got to the New World, they were appalled to find the Indians engaged not only in cannibalism and human sacrifice but what they considered perverted sex practices such as incest. Spanish missionaries quickly set about forcibly converting the Incas and Aztecs. In North America, the Puritans referred to masturbation as "the solitary vice" and "self-pollution." Rev. Samuel Danforth (1674) wrote that any ejaculation was "unclean" under divine law.

A few rebelled against Christian beliefs. Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1798) wrote that he satisfied his sexual desires by masturbation, but such frank attitudes were rare.

S. A. D. Tissot wrote a monograph on masturbation in 1758 in an early "scientific" effort to interpret sex and religion. Tissot said that seminal emission could cause serious health problems. After all, a boy's sexual maturation coincided with the deepening of his voice, the growth of body and facial hair, increased height and weight, and other signs of masculinity. Castrated eunuchs produce no semen and are not masculine. Hence, clearly, loss of semen weakened masculinity. Frequent intercourse was dangerous, but loss of semen through "unnatural means" like masturbation was VERY dangerous.

Tissot's text didn't reach America until 1832, but his influence was widely felt. According to Tissot, masturbation led to fuzzy thinking and insanity. Madhouse inmates sat around jerking off; ergo, masturbation caused madness. Similar bizarre reasoning led to the belief that masturbation also caused decay of bodily powers, coughing, and consumption (tuberculosis). Female masturbators were prone to hysterical fits, jaundice, or violent cramps.

In the 1800s, onanism and masturbation were tied to homosexuality. Sodomy was a catchall phrase for such practices as masturbation, anal intercourse, and bestiality. Sylvester Graham (1794-1851), inventor of the Graham cracker, taught that the loss of an ounce of semen was equivalent to the loss of four ounces of blood, reducing the life-force and exposing the body to disease and even death. Masturbation was seen as the most dangerous of deviant sexual acts, undoubtedly because it was so extensively practiced. Masturbation was called "the most criminal, most pernicious, most unnatural" of sexual acts, and described as a contagious disease. It was worse than other diseases because it drained off vital bodily fluids. (And you thought Jack D. Ripper's purity-of-essence bit from Dr. Strangelove was just a nutty Kubrickian riff!)

As the 1800s proceeded, the Victorian Age put hostility to sex on a "scientific" foundation. James Scott, writing in 1899, used the term masturbation to mean any "sin against nature" including coitus interruptus, oral-genital sex, pederasty, bestiality, and self-pollution. Women were warned not to enjoy sex. Contraceptives were condemned as onanism. Infantile paralysis (polio) and infantile rheumatism were added to the list of diseases caused by masturbation.

In the UK, religious and societal attitudes against sex led to a horror of divorce, culminating in the abdication of Edward VIII in1936 to marry a divorced woman.

It's only in the last century or so that sex--including masturbation--has been viewed as natural, and only in the last few decades that homosexual activities have gained societal acceptance. We've come a long way.

Do you see any difference between dieting to lose weight and practicing bulimia? Between eating a second serving then vomiting it up versus simply not taking a second serving? Both achieve the same end so in your world both are morally equivalent? Apparently essential moral distinctions are beyond your comprehension because its “not in the bible.”

Except these are not "essential moral distinctions" you are trying to assert. They are commandments your church has decided it can demand every Christian follow - without Biblical basis - and condemns with eternal hell all those who dare to think for themselves in obedience to Christ who see the issue differently. You complained that nobody was engaging with you on the topic of contraception, but look at how you treat those of us who have. You've leveled personal invectives at me three or four times on this thread. If you don't agree with my points, then why can't you just give your own view and agree to disagree? If you show no respect to those who engage in a dialog with you, I think you can figure out why you haven't been able to generate more back and forth. Have any of your opponents told you you are going to hell if you don't believe in the exact same things they do? Have you been told the spirit you follow can't be the Holy Spirit because you don't agree with them on a subject Scripture is mostly silent about? We have ALL that we need from God's holy word to teach us how to live Godly lives and what He expects of us who follow Him. I accept that you have the right to believe what you want on this subject. I've explained my views and why I hold to them. Mutual respect is good standard for how forums such as this should proceed.

And, for your amusement, to answer your quirky example of dieting vs. bulimia and their "moral equivalence" to contraception, I'd say there is NOT a valid moral equivalence. If you are trying to lose weight, you must use up more calories than you take in. Using bulimia or anorexia or any other eating "disorder" is wrong simply because it is harmful to the body to do those things. If you wanted to satisfy your sweet tooth without jeopardizing your diet, for example, you can eat noncaloric or low calorie foods. Your body is tricked into feeling satisfied without adding extra calories and gaining weight or slowing down your weight loss.

If you and your spouse want to satisfy your sexual needs without the risk of adding another baby to your family, you can utilize "methods" that help prevent conception/fertilization. Methods exist that do NOT cause the death of a child. And just like eating too much of the "nonfattening" foods can confound your weight loss goal, so can too much sexual activity, using methods that block fertilization, add statistical risks that the method might fail and a child is conceived. Either way, responsible Christians accept the risk and welcome the child into their lives as a gift from God and part of His plan for their marriage. Other than this, that is about as far as I think you can take this "example" likening dieting to contraception. I've already said I reject abortifacient methods.

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.