Question for Anti-Birth Control People

[Thumb]

Several Catholics on this board would probably disagree with you.

 

[tsmith7559]

It's funny nobody has even responded to the OP.

He's asking your personal opinion on birth control. Mitch might have answered the topic, but it's a little hazy.

My personal opinion is birth control is fine for people who do not want children, more children then they have, or children at that point in time.


EDIT: actually he's only asking why people who are against it, why. So my opinion is invalid I guess.

catholic teachings.....

 

[Sbee]

It's hard for me to imagine anyone reading this thread being opposed to birth control. I can imagine not wanting to pay for someone else's birth control and I can imagine being opposed to taking a fetus out and and calling it birth control. But being opposed to taking steps to prevent the sperm from doing its thing with with the egg? Not going to find that here, I don't think.

If you have a problem paying for birth control then don't bitch about paying for welfare, food stamps, prisons, courts, and then in 18 years we start all over again.

The world doesn't need more unplanned pregnacies, mainly to single mothers

 

[jwlcosu]

If you have a problem paying for birth control then don't bitch about paying for welfare, food stamps, prisons, courts, and then in 18 years we start all over again.

The world doesn't need more unplanned pregnacies, mainly to single mothers

Yes, that's been the common argument for as long as I can remember and when it's time to throw in the towel for good, I suppose I'll be good with all that. In the meantime, I'll hang on to the antiquated notion that personal responsibility is to be expected.

 

[jwlcosu]

Several Catholics on this board would probably disagree with you.

I think you're wrong. But they are welcome to weigh in.

 

[Mitchrapp]

I think you're wrong. But they are welcome to weigh in.

We already have..

 

[jwlcosu]

We already have..

Well, I read your posts but as another poster commented, your position was a little hazy. Are you saying that you are opposed to use of the pill and/or condoms for the purpose of preventing pregnancy? My thought is that yes, that is Catholic doctrine, but it is doctrine to which the vast majority of Catholics don't subscribe.

The morning after pill? Forget it, I get that and yes, I can imagine that vast numbers are opposed. That's not what I'm talking about.

 

[Mitchrapp]

Well, I read your posts but as another poster commented, your position was a little hazy. Are you saying that you are opposed to use of the pill and/or condoms for the purpose of preventing pregnancy? My thought is that yes, that is Catholic doctrine, but it is doctrine to which the vast majority of Catholics don't subscribe.

The morning after pill? Forget it, I get that and yes, I can imagine that vast numbers are opposed. That's not what I'm talking about.

True that but this Catholic follows it. Some do some don't.

 

[TheVictors]

I think there are few left who really believe 'birth control' ...defined as 'pregnancy prevention' - The pill, condoms, implants or even the old tubes tied/snip snip - is bad or immoral. Specifically the Catholic Church, but otherwise I'd say a vocal minority with other agendas or goals in mind.

Ex. Depicting 'birth control' as abortion

 

[Michchamp]

this man is also strongly opposed to wearing condoms:

 

[Gulo Blue]

But being opposed to taking steps to prevent the sperm from doing its thing with with the egg?

Except the pill doesn't prevent the sperm from doing its thing with the egg. That misconception is the point of the facebook chatter I've seen.

 

[Gulo Blue]

this man is also strongly opposed to wearing condoms:

With so much drama in the L B C, it's kinda hard bein' Snoop D O double G.

 

[Michchamp]

Except the pill doesn't prevent the sperm from doing its thing with the egg. That misconception is the point of the facebook chatter I've seen.

that's why I posted that other thing. The pill prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the wall of the uterus, which is what the medical community has considered the beginning of "birth" or whatever, for a long time.

I guess, they can call it what they want to, but medical science calls it something else.

 

[KAWDUP]

Well, as long as you (read Champ) doesn't persecute me, I can give you my opinion. I fully expect abstinence to be the main way to prevent pregnancy. Not everyone's cup of tea I expect, as even jokingly, champ would like to father 21 children with 10 different women. :*) No worries Champ - just joking with you.

So, if we now have just married couples that want to limit how many children they have, it is my belief that they might be going against God's will for them to try to change that. You should be willing to accept as many children as God provides.

Some practical problems with this stance, just to make people realize, I am conflicted in this opinion.
1) How about birth control for women with a medical condition - how can one be against that?
2) If the Catholic church approves of the rhythm method, isn't this still interfering with God's will, so maybe my opinion is really out there and definitely not mainstream.
3) If a family is rather poor, below the poverty line poor, how should we as a society deal with 10-12 kids per poor family? Hey, we made them follow the "law".

I have reasons for feeling the way I do. All you need is to be part of a family with multiple miscarriages, and while you might not approach the level of my opinion, it might change how you feel about the current law's definition of the beginning of "birth".

Please remember, I am not advocating this opinion for anyone else, just telling you mine.

 

[Michchamp]

Well, as long as you (read Champ) doesn't persecute me, I can give you my opinion. I fully expect abstinence to be the main way to prevent pregnancy. Not everyone's cup of tea I expect, as even jokingly, champ would like to father 21 children with 10 different women. :*) No worries Champ - just joking with you.

So, if we now have just married couples that want to limit how many children they have, it is my belief that they might be going against God's will for them to try to change that. You should be willing to accept as many children as God provides.

Some practical problems with this stance, just to make people realize, I am conflicted in this opinion.
1) How about birth control for women with a medical condition - how can one be against that?
2) If the Catholic church approves of the rhythm method, isn't this still interfering with God's will, so maybe my opinion is really out there and definitely not mainstream.
3) If a family is rather poor, below the poverty line poor, how should we as a society deal with 10-12 kids per poor family? Hey, we made them follow the "law".

I have reasons for feeling the way I do. All you need is to be part of a family with multiple miscarriages, and while you might not approach the level of my opinion, it might change how you feel about the current law's definition of the beginning of "birth".

Please remember, I am not advocating this opinion for anyone else, just telling you mine.

Why would anyone persecute you merely for stating your beliefs, while not insisting anyone else be burdened or affected by them?

that has never happened on the politics board.

anyways... yeah, regarding pt. #2, my cynical view is because they know it doesn't really work that well, or at least is a lot more difficult to follow correctly, so they know they're not really curbing the number of new babies out there.

But like you said, they are approving a method of BC regardless, so how is that not going against their god's will? Maybe it's okay for them to go against their god's will on occasion, but not too often or to a greater degree.

 

[Gulo Blue]

that's why I posted that other thing. The pill prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the wall of the uterus, which is what the medical community has considered the beginning of "birth" or whatever, for a long time.

I guess, they can call it what they want to, but medical science calls it something else.

Easy there. Before you start saying things "medical science calls it..." The words "fertilization" and "implantation" have specific, clearly defined meanings. The meaning of the word "conception" varies because there's no agreement on a specific thing that can be measured or observed.

Webster calls it "the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both"

Wikipedia says "The term "conception" is not usually used in scientific literature because of its variable definition and connotation." and "Definitions like this may add to a lay person's confusion, as "conception" in a scientific context may be defined as fertilization, in a medical context can mean either fertilization or implantation but in lay terms may mean both."

You might as well throw out the word "conception". The issue is when does human life begin. If you say "at fertilization" then the pill is out. If you say, "at implantation", then the pill is in, but abortions are out. If you say "at viability" then abortions are ok up to some date. No scientific test to establish which is correct has been devised.

The issue on facebook is alleged labeling of the pill that has mislead people that believe life begins at fertilization. However you want to label it, that's the issue of the day.

 

[Michchamp]

So... all those who believed Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs were sincere, step forward to collect your dunce cap.

Linky. (Just to make Byco happy, I used a link to Mother Jones.)

short summary: even though Hobby Lobby is opposed to all forms of birth control... and don't want their employees to use it because the Bible... they have no problem with their company retirement plans being heavily invested in stocks of birth control manufacturers.

I'm sure they'll quickly come out and blame some wayward fund manager for it. Wonder if they'll actually divest their retirement funds from these stocks, or will just sweat it out? Or not even care about appearing hypocritical because, why should they?

 

[zyxt9]

So... all those who believed Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs were sincere, step forward to collect your dunce cap.

Linky. (Just to make Byco happy, I used a link to Mother Jones.)

short summary: even though Hobby Lobby is opposed to all forms of birth control... and don't want their employees to use it because the Bible... they have no problem with their company retirement plans being heavily invested in stocks of birth control manufacturers.

I'm sure they'll quickly come out and blame some wayward fund manager for it. Wonder if they'll actually divest their retirement funds from these stocks, or will just sweat it out? Or not even care about appearing hypocritical because, why should they?

BBBBWWWWAAAAHHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHAAAAHHHHAAA....AHHH...bwwaaahhhahahaha....

Seriously, Champ, THIS is a beautiful post...in complete and sincere honesty, no joke...

I wish they would also look into which companies Hobby Lobby's stock invests in that are run by Jews, as a Hobby Lobby in NJ went viral amongst Jews for having told a Jew who asked, "Where's all of the Chanukah decorations?"..."We don't serve YOUR kind here!"...but I'm sure their portfolio includes Jewish run companies and they don't mind taking that Jew money.

It's a shame cause they actually sell some nice stuff, but now my wife refuses to shop there and will never give them another penny and wishes we had never bought stuff from them in the past. Yeah, she holds a solid grudge that will never budge about stuff like that. She'll shop at Christian stores, especially for her friends who are Christian, so long as that store doesn't demonstrate blatant hatred and intolerance like Hobby Lobby does.