Have been doing research on the Catholic Church and instances where she has deviated (as in a 180 degree changes in dogma) through the ages.

In my research, I have taken note of the changes in mainstream Protestant churches' beliefs as well since the split.

Call it, One Pope vs Many (or no) Popes......I post the following video for comments. Not "there is only one truth" comments, but rather constructive comments and dialogue. Michael Voris is seen by some as the Catholic Starman. Concentrate on the message and questions and not the delivery.

Birth Control and Baptists - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB6cVvVDnyo)

It was kind of a long rant about this one guy but the Baptists aren't the final authority on birth control. So what do you think the "rule" is about birth control?

It was kind of a long rant about this one guy but the Baptists aren't the final authority on birth control. So what do you think the "rule" is about birth control?

Well it will come as no surprise to you that I agree with what the Catholic Church teaches on birth control.

Well it will come as no surprise to you that I agree with what the Catholic Church teaches on birth control.
So you believe in no birth control at all, ever? I think that's what the CC believes, right?

So you believe in no birth control at all, ever? I think that's what the CC believes, right?

No. I've always understood the the CC allows the rhythm method. The prohibition deals with artificial methods of birth control (pill, condoms, etc).

No. I've always understood the the CC allows the rhythm method. The prohibition deals with artificial methods of birth control (pill, condoms, etc).
And I have no problem with that myself. I just don't think that all forms of BC are wrong...

So you believe in no birth control at all, ever? I think that's what the CC believes, right?

How can you claim to be a gay Italian biker and not be Catholic?

How can you claim to be a gay Italian biker and not be Catholic?

:lmao: too funny

How can you claim to be a gay Italian biker and not be Catholic?
You make me wish birth control was retroactive...

You make me wish birth control was retroactive...

Now, now... that's not a very christian thing to say!

Now, now... that's not a very christian thing to say!
Now, now...How would you know that? :razz:

Children are a gift from God.

IMHO....The question here has little to do with birth control "the pill".

The way I see it.... the question is "Should married people be enjoying sexual pleasure for the purpose other than procreation."

God gave us an urge for sex. He gave women a cycle in which there are times when a married couple can enjoy each other with a lower risk of procreation.

God gave Moses laws concerning dealing with menstrual cycles. A man would become unclean if he was with a woman during certain periods of that cycle.

IMHO This would make a man and woman aware that having sex when the woman is most fertile carried certain risks.

IMHO Knowing the period in which she might enter that unclean period is never completely reliable, but I'm sure the women and men back in the beginning were very aware of the natural cycle of things.

It appears this is a built in birth control in God's Law and the cycle.

I am pro-life.... I took the pill back in the 70's. It didn't work for me. I have 3 pill babies.

Children are a gift from GOD.

:coffee:

Now, now...How would you know that? :razz:

Good point there, IS. Nowhere that I can think of is it a bad Christian attitude for one to hope (expect)/pray, etc., for bad things NOT to happen. And there are plenty of bad things in the world, the primary being bad people that cause bad and misery to occur.

They will wish, on some future date, that they had never been born.

Birth control is completely acceptable in my eyes, for the prevention of conception. That's called responsibility.

Any other method AFTER conception, outside of miscarriage or medically necessary procedures to save the mothers life, is murder.

Good point there, IS. Nowhere that I can think of is it a bad Christian attitude for one to hope (expect)/pray, etc., for bad things NOT to happen. And there are plenty of bad things in the world, the primary being bad people that cause bad and misery to occur.

They will wish, on some future date, that they had never been born.

Birth control is completely acceptable in my eyes, for the prevention of conception. That's called responsibility.

Any other method AFTER conception, outside of miscarriage or medically necessary procedures to save the mothers life, is murder.

But yet many birth control methods act as abortifacients, an IUD for example.

I find it interesting that many people still think Obama's attempt to dictate what the Catholic church is allowed to believe is still being framed as "birth control"

This subject is near and dear to my heart. As a Catholic woman with lots of children, I fancy myself a bit of an authority on this subject.
My dh and I actually started practicing NFP this year, as I really feel my childbearing years are over.
It has been a blessing like neither of us imagined, and this is further confirmation to me that God is with the Catholic Church.

A few things I've noticed in my marriage because of NFP.
NFP has allowed me to understand my husband's desires like never before. Because we have to abstain during the time when I am most interested, I have developed a sympathy for him that I didn't have before.
Because of his generosity in abstaining during the fertile time, I am happy to be generous during the safe times. We have both noticed the effort the other one is making (which, truth be told, I can't say it's much of an effort). We are both truly giving of ourselves, as opposed...perhaps, to taking.
Culturally, there is the notion that women have to feign a headache, or some such thing, to get...peace(?) from their husbands? Not so in our experience, which goes back to the giving aspect of NFP.

Protestants, as a group, I think, would agree with the Catholic position that sex between husband and wife is sacred. When we participate in something sacred, how is it we can justify holding back some part of ourselves?
God gave us the urge for sex, but that doesn't mean, even within marriage, that there should be no discipline, no sacrifice.
Eating is a natural urge/instinct as well, however, does anyone here think that we should be able to eat whatever/whenever we want, just because God gave us the urge, and because food is necessary to survival?
Anyway. That's my $0.02 for the day. I'll be back to check on this thread because it is a most interesting topic!

But yet many birth control methods act as abortifacients, an IUD for example.

Every definition of that word "abortifacients" that I can find means :

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Abortifacients

abortifacient /abor·ti·fa·cient/ (ah-bor″tĭ-fa´shent)
1. causing abortion.
2. an agent that induces abortion.

Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Health Consumers. © 2007 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
a·bor·ti·fa·cient (-bôrt-fshnt)
adj.
Causing or inducing abortion.
a·borti·facient n.
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
abortifacient
[əbôr′tifā′shənt]
1 causing abortion.
2 any agent that causes abortion.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.
abortifacient [ah-bor″tĭ-fa´shent]
1. causing abortion.abortifacient [ah-bor″tĭ-fa´shent]
1. causing abortion.
2. an agent that induces abortion.
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. © 2003 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
abortifacient,
adj/n an instrument or material capable of terminating a pregnancy.
Jonas: Mosby's Dictionary of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. (c) 2005, Elsevier.
abortifacient
1. causing abortion.
2. an agent that induces abortion.
Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary, 3 ed. © 2007 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved
abortifacient
Pharmacology An agent that induces the expulsion of an embryo or fetus; a drug, herb other chemical that dilates of the cervix and causes the uterus to contract resulting in a spontaneous termination of pregnancy

McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Com

To me, by definition, IUD's are not an abortifacient. The SCOTUS ruled that some years ago, but you have to take any of their rulings with wide latitude.

There is one, a medication - Mirena, an implanted IUD that releases hormones that destroy fertilized eggs. I guess that would be an abortifacient.

The entire religious take on birth control centers on money and power. The fastest way to grow a church is not through missionary worth but either by saying"no birth control", God will let you know when to stop, or even multiple wives. It's exponentially faster than ANY missionary work or proselytizing. How fast will a church grow if every generation had 10-12 kids or 5 or 6 wives that were always pregnant. If you think back to the day the rules were made, and the infant and mother mortality rate, you'd think there take would have been just the opposite to protect their living members, instead of playing Russian roulette with their female members.

No matter how abusive it is to the woman, our even if they can feed them a church will hold you in high regard if you're a member with ten kids, even if you can't pay your electric bill.

Ludicrous to think that rhythm is ok, but putting on a Trojan would be a sin (want to guess whichis the more efficient form of birth control?).

This subject is near and dear to my heart. As a Catholic woman with lots of children, I fancy myself a bit of an authority on this subject.
My dh and I actually started practicing NFP this year, as I really feel my childbearing years are over.
It has been a blessing like neither of us imagined, and this is further confirmation to me that God is with the Catholic Church.

A few things I've noticed in my marriage because of NFP.
NFP has allowed me to understand my husband's desires like never before. Because we have to abstain during the time when I am most interested, I have developed a sympathy for him that I didn't have before.
Because of his generosity in abstaining during the fertile time, I am happy to be generous during the safe times. We have both noticed the effort the other one is making (which, truth be told, I can't say it's much of an effort). We are both truly giving of ourselves, as opposed...perhaps, to taking.
Culturally, there is the notion that women have to feign a headache, or some such thing, to get...peace(?) from their husbands? Not so in our experience, which goes back to the giving aspect of NFP.

Protestants, as a group, I think, would agree with the Catholic position that sex between husband and wife is sacred. When we participate in something sacred, how is it we can justify holding back some part of ourselves?
God gave us the urge for sex, but that doesn't mean, even within marriage, that there should be no discipline, no sacrifice.
Eating is a natural urge/instinct as well, however, does anyone here think that we should be able to eat whatever/whenever we want, just because God gave us the urge, and because food is necessary to survival?
Anyway. That's my $0.02 for the day. I'll be back to check on this thread because it is a most interesting topic!Why doesn't your husband just get the snip snip?

No. I've always understood the the CC allows the rhythm method. The prohibition deals with artificial methods of birth control (pill, condoms, etc).

You heard about the man and woman who practiced the rhythm method?


All 7 of their kids play musical instruments.

You heard about the man and woman who practiced the rhythm method?+

All 7 of their kids play musical instruments.

All drums, bass, and rap? That be the rhythm....

Every definition of that word "abortifacients" that I can find means :

Abortifacients - definition of Abortifacients in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Abortifacients)

abortifacient /abor·ti·fa·cient/ (ah-bor″tĭ-fa´shent)
1. causing abortion.
2. an agent that induces abortion.


An embryo is created before it reaches the uterus. An abortifacient is any birth control that makes the uterus inhospitable to embryonic implantation such as an IUD and various birth-control pills.

An embryo is created before it reaches the uterus. An abortifacient is any birth control that makes the uterus inhospitable to embryonic implantation such as an IUD and various birth-control pills.

Can't say as I really disagree with you. Just tell the legal beagles that. If every IUD does that, and there is wide disagreement on that issue, then I would say IUD's are abortion - after conception.

Call me old school or whatever, but conception begins when that nasty old sperm penetrates that egg....oooohhhhh......

Call me old school or whatever, but conception begins when that nasty old sperm penetrates that egg....oooohhhhh......

:yay:

now, now... That's not a very christian thing to say!

troll......

troll......

Pot or kettle?

Its not called the rhythm method. NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING!

I did it for a time. Works well.

Pot or kettle?

Your a troll also?

Birth control is completely acceptable in my eyes, for the prevention of conception. That's called responsibility. Any other method AFTER conception, outside of miscarriage or medically necessary procedures to save the mothers life, is murder.
I agree that the responsibility is ours and that God wants children to be born BUT not neglected. The egg and the sperm are not a human life by themselves, so using the pill or a condom does not end a life.

"Be fruitful and increase in number" was the command given to the animals and Noah. It is not a prohibition of using birth control as many take it to be.

Your a troll also?

you're.....:coffee:

dummy

Your a troll also?

^You're. Let me give you a lesson.

You're a wanna-be pig
Your donuts are stale
You're a beach ball
Your stomach is overhanging your belt
You're a loser
Your wife and my kids live at your house

Why doesn't your husband just get the snip snip?

That's against Church teaching, as well. And I wouldn't want him to. As I posted before, I think the wisdom of the Church can only be recognized once you have practiced NFP and seen the benefits in your marriage.
Women don't have the same drive as men. That is true across the board, with some possible exceptions.
If my dh were sterile, there would be no need to resist his urges and I guarantee that I would feel completely objectified and used for relief, as there would be no practical reason for me to say 'no'. There is also the likely possibility that we would end up locking horns if I didn't...cooperate as often as he would like. that would be a strain on our marriage.
I'm curious what the men here think is their ideal number of encounters they should have with their wives per week/month?

you're.....:coffee:

dummy

ahhh a spell checker....troll

I agree that the responsibility is ours and that God wants children to be born BUT not neglected. The egg and the sperm are not a human life by themselves, so using the pill or a condom does not end a life.

"Be fruitful and increase in number" was the command given to the animals and Noah. It is not a prohibition of using birth control as many take it to be.

Disagree. Once the sperm and egg are met and fertilized it's DNA is the same as that of a 30 year old. While the child looks different it's the same person, no difference. This is why so many Christians reject the "pill" as an abortifacient. It prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the womb in essence allowing the egg to die.

^You're. Let me give you a lesson.

You're a wanna-be pig
Your donuts are stale
You're a beach ball
Your stomach is overhanging your belt
You're a loser
Your wife and my kids live at your house

Classy....troll

That's against Church teaching, as well. And I wouldn't want him to. As I posted before, I think the wisdom of the Church can only be recognized once you have practiced NFP and seen the benefits in your marriage.
Women don't have the same drive as men. That is true across the board, with some possible exceptions.
If my dh were sterile, there would be no need to resist his urges and I guarantee that I would feel completely objectified and used for relief, as there would be no practical reason for me to say 'no'. There is also the likely possibility that we would end up locking horns if I didn't...cooperate as often as he would like. that would be a strain on our marriage.
I'm curious what the men here think is their ideal number of encounters they should have with their wives per week/month?

Can we agree that church teaching is not necessarily bible teaching. I am with you on the pill. But snip snip has no basis in biblical example that I am aware of. Your husband being snipped does not have/should not have any bearing on his urges. IMO.

Can we agree that church teaching is not necessarily bible teaching. I am with you on the pill. But snip snip has no basis in biblical example that I am aware of. Your husband being snipped does not have/should not have any bearing on his urges. IMO.

As far as what the bible says about urges, Paul wrote:

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1 Corinthians 7:3-5

The RCC bases it's views (correct me if I am wrong here) on birth control primarily on the Old Testament passage where Onan refuses to give his brother's widow a child by making a mess on the floor of the tent (Genesis 38). God was angered by this...and very much so. But it wasn't the act of doing it that angered God, so much as why Onan did it. He had a wicked and selfish heart that defied God.

Claiming that the act of spilling it on the ground itself is absolute sin, is missing the forest for the trees IMHO.

At best the passage is somewhat inconclusive, and I would be wary of basing dogma and doctrine on it.

The RCC bases it's views (correct me if I am wrong here) on birth control primarily on the Old Testament passage where Onan refuses to give his brother's widow a child by making a mess on the floor of the tent (Genesis 38).

It's based not so much the one lone OT scripture passage but more on natural moral law.

As far as what the bible says about urges, Paul wrote:

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1 Corinthians 7:3-5

The RCC bases it's views (correct me if I am wrong here) on birth control primarily on the Old Testament passage where Onan refuses to give his brother's widow a child by making a mess on the floor of the tent (Genesis 38). God was angered by this...and very much so. But it wasn't the act of doing it that angered God, so much as why Onan did it. He had a wicked and selfish heart that defied God.

Claiming that the act of spilling it on the ground itself is absolute sin, is missing the forest for the trees IMHO.

At best the passage is somewhat inconclusive, and I would be wary of basing dogma and doctrine on it.

I was talking about urges and being snipped. They don't have any relationshp that I am aware of. The husband and wife's sexual relationship should not change because of the snipeddy snip....

I was talking about urges and being snipped. They don't have any relationshp that I am aware of. The husband and wife's sexual relationship should not change because of the snipeddy snip....
You totally missed it from a woman's perspective... she was saying when a man and a woman withhold sexual relations as a natural form of birth control, it tends to have to happen when a woman's sexual desire is at it's highest. This makes her realize how he must feel when his desire is high and her's is low during other times of the month so she does not resent giving in to having sex when she does not want to... she does it willingly because she recognizes his feelings because she experiences it herself when her libido is high and she cannot give in. She also recognizes that this gives her a period of time within each month where she knows she will not be advanced upon.

She believes if he is snipped then there is no basis for her refusal of his sexual advances so the risk of the woman feeling like a sexual object at his every whim which could lead to resentment.

It's based not so much the one lone OT scripture passage but more on natural moral law.I did a little reading, and came across this: Birth Control | Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control)

Very informative.

However, it appears from the following that I have committed a mortal sin which I assume condemns one to Hell:

The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.

You totally missed it from a woman's perspective... she was saying when a man and a woman withhold sexual relations as a natural form of birth control, it tends to have to happen when a woman's sexual desire is at it's highest. This makes her realize how he must feel when his desire is high and her's is low during other times of the month so she does not resent giving in to having sex when she does not want to... she does it willingly because she recognizes his feelings because she experiences it herself when her libido is high and she cannot give in. She also recognizes that this gives her a period of time within each month where she knows she will not be advanced upon.

She believes if he is snipped then there is no basis for her refusal of his sexual advances so the risk of the woman feeling like a sexual object at his every whim which could lead to resentment.

I was speaking from a man's perspective......LOL

Disagree. Once the sperm and egg are met and fertilized it's DNA is the same as that of a 30 year old. While the child looks different it's the same person, no difference. This is why so many Christians reject the "pill" as an abortifacient. It prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the womb in essence allowing the egg to die.

Not so.

The "pill" actually prevents ovulation. No fertilization takes place. It's a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.

However, it appears from the following that I have committed a mortal sin which I assume condemns one to Hell:

As with any mortal sin, only if you're unrepentent. :shrug:

I was speaking from a man's perspective......LOL

:bonk:

Not so.

The "pill" actually prevents ovulation. No fertilization takes place. It's a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.

If that's true then how do you explain pregnancy while on the pill?

The Pill – Contraceptive or Abortifacient (http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html)

Q. How does the pill really work?

A. There are four ways the pill acts to stop sperm reaching an egg (ovum). First, the hormones in the pill try to stop an ovum being released from your ovary each month. This is known as the suppression of ovulation. Research has shown that neither the progesterone-only pill nor the combined progesterone-oestrogen formulations always stop ovulation.

Second, all formulations of the pill cause changes to the cervical mucus that your body produces. The cervical mucus may become thicker and more difficult for sperm to fertilize an ovum.

Third, all formulations of the pill cause changes to the lining of the womb (properly known as the endometrium). Under the influence of the chemicals in the pill, the lining of the womb doesn’t grow to the proper thickness. You will notice that your periods are lighter when you are on the pill. This is because the lining of the womb has not developed properly. But this change also means that the womb is not in the right stage of development to allow a fertilized egg to attach properly (this attachment process is known as implantation). This action of the pill will be discussed again in this booklet.

Fourth, the pill causes changes to the movement of the Fallopian tubes. This effect may reduce the possibility of the ovum being fertilised.

It is very important for you to understand that none of these ways the pill works is completely reliable. Ovulation is not always stopped, cervical mucus does not always stop the movement of sperm the damage to the lining of the womb sometimes allows for implantation to occur, and Fallopian tube activity does not always stop sperm and ovum from joining to create a new human person.

Not so.

The "pill" actually prevents ovulation. No fertilization takes place. It's a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.

You may want to check. It is accurate and true.

If that's true then how do you explain pregnancy while on the pill?

The Pill – Contraceptive or Abortifacient (http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html)

Because the pill is not 100% reliable. No contraceptive is.

I was talking about urges and being snipped. They don't have any relationshp that I am aware of. The husband and wife's sexual relationship should not change because of the snipeddy snip....
I know, in my original reply it reflected your post, but I edited and it missed the mark.

Because the pill is not 100% reliable. No contraceptive is.

Well there ya go, you were incorrect. I'm not trying to convince anyone one way or the other regarding the use of bc, but one should at least be educated in their choices.

Well there ya go, you were incorrect. I'm not trying to convince anyone one way or the other regarding the use of bc, but one should at least be educated in their choices.

What are you talking about? I wasn't incorrect. I said that the pill prevents ovulation, as in that's what's it's designed to do. I made no claims as to the pill's reliability.

What are you talking about? I wasn't incorrect. I said that the pill prevents ovulation, as in that's what's it's designed to do. I made no claims as to the pill's reliability.

You claimed it didn't cause an abortion, when in fact it does in some cases.

You claimed it didn't cause an abortion, when in fact it does in some cases.

Can you cite an example?

Can you cite an example?

This is what Radient1 posted, which I agree with, and why my wife stopped the pill when we became Christians.

Third, all formulations of the pill cause changes to the lining of the womb (properly known as the endometrium). Under the influence of the chemicals in the pill, the lining of the womb doesn’t grow to the proper thickness. You will notice that your periods are lighter when you are on the pill. This is because the lining of the womb has not developed properly. But this change also means that the womb is not in the right stage of development to allow a fertilized egg to attach properly (this attachment process is known as implantation).

I guess it depends on if you define conception as fertilization or implantation.

What are you talking about? I wasn't incorrect. I said that the pill prevents ovulation, as in that's what's it's designed to do. I made no claims as to the pill's reliability.

If it's not always reliable, then it doesn't always prevent ovulation. Simple.

I said:
An abortifacient is any birth control that makes the uterus inhospitable to embryonic implantation such as an IUD and various birth-control pills.

You said:The "pill" actually prevents ovulation. No fertilization takes place. It's a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.

I then pointed out the information found here:
The Pill – Contraceptive or Abortifacient (http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html)

We both agree that the pill is unreliable. The fact that it is unreliable means that you are incorrect when you said: It's a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.

I think we can agree that the pill can act as both. At any rate, if one is concerned about pro-life issues at the moment of conception and the use of birth control, then the pill is not the birth control they want to use. A woman on the pill could have conceived countless times and never known it.

You claimed it didn't cause an abortion, when in fact it does in some cases.

Actually, it can cause a miscarriage in some cases if ovulation does occur and the egg can't attach to the uterus due to one of the side effects of the pill.

If it's not always reliable, then it doesn't always prevent ovulation. Simple.

I said:


You said:

I then pointed out the information found here:

We both agree that the pill is unreliable. The fact that it is unreliable means that you are incorrect when you said:

I think we can agree that the pill can act as both. At any rate, if one is concerned about pro-life issues at the moment of conception and the use of birth control, then the pill is not the birth control they want to use. A woman on the pill could have conceived countless times and never known it.

Once again, I NEVER MADE ANY STATEMENT REGARDING THE RELIABILITY OF THE PILL.

We both agree that the pill is unreliable. The fact that it is unreliable means that you are incorrect when you said:

Originally Posted by awpitt
It's a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.



Incorrect. In some cases, the pill can cause a miscarriage.

Actually, it can cause a miscarriage in some cases if ovulation does occur and the egg can't attach to the uterus due to one of the side effects of the pill.When the miscarriage is caused by taking a poison pill and knowing that it could cause it to happen, I'd say that qualifies as an abortion.

Miscarriage is kind of like the word "kill". It's a general term. There are several forms of killing. Murder is one. Self-defense is another. Capital punishment yet another. I hope you see where I am going?

When the miscarriage is caused by taking a poison pill and knowing that it could cause it to happen, I'd say that qualifies as an abortion.

That's your opinion. Based on your reasoning, if the expectant mother smokes and drinks and that causes a miscarriage, you'd consider that an abortion as well.

I was speaking from a man's perspective......LOL

The perspective is the closest you'll ever be to manhood, son.

This is what Radient1 posted, which I agree with, and why my wife stopped the pill when we became Christians.

Third, all formulations of the pill cause changes to the lining of the womb (properly known as the endometrium). Under the influence of the chemicals in the pill, the lining of the womb doesn’t grow to the proper thickness. You will notice that your periods are lighter when you are on the pill. This is because the lining of the womb has not developed properly. But this change also means that the womb is not in the right stage of development to allow a fertilized egg to attach properly (this attachment process is known as implantation).

I guess it depends on if you define conception as fertilization or implantation.

This explains that the pills can prevent conditions that allow pregnancy to happen; that is not the same thing as abortion. Conception must occur for aobrtion to occur. This explanation does not support the pill can cause an abortion.

And I'm not disagreeing that it could. I've just never heard this and wanted a documented example as proof.

Incorrect. In some cases, the pill can cause a miscarriage.

Are you saying miscarriage of a fertilized egg? If that's the case then I would say that the pill failed in it's first part to prevent the pregnancy. But do you have any examples of where a fetus was miscarried as a result of the pill?

That's your opinion. Based on your reasoning, if the expectant mother smokes and drinks and that causes a miscarriage, you'd consider that an abortion as well.

My understanding of an abortion is it's done on purpose. My understanding of a miscarriage is it's unintentional.

Once again, I NEVER MADE ANY STATEMENT REGARDING THE RELIABILITY OF THE PILL.

No you didn't, but you did state that the pill is not an abortifacient, which it is. In fact, you have already admitted to it by calling abortion a miscarriage, which is just semantics, the result is the same thing.

This explains that the pills can prevent conditions that allow pregnancy to happen; that is not the same thing as abortion. Conception must occur for aobrtion to occur. This explanation does not support the pill can cause an abortion.

And I'm not disagreeing that it could. I've just never heard this and wanted a documented example as proof.

Can there be documented example of proof? If an embryo can't embed into the uterus it therefore aborts. A woman will have what appears to be a period, maybe heavier than usual or earlier than usual, or maybe normal. She would never know she conceived at that point. The medical explanation of how a pill works should suffice that it can happen.

My understanding of an abortion is it's done on purpose. My understanding of a miscarriage is it's unintentional.

The medical term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion. It just isn't a mechanical abortion but rather a biological one OR one caused by an abortifacient such as certain birth control methods.

Are you saying miscarriage of a fertilized egg? If that's the case then I would say that the pill failed in it's first part to prevent the pregnancy. But do you have any examples of where a fetus was miscarried as a result of the pill?

I don't have any examples. But we do know the pill is not 100% reliable. Reduction in the reliability is caused when the pill is not take every day or if it's taken every day but not at the same time each day. What's being said here is that if a women ovulates while on the pill and that egg is fertilized, it won't be able to attach to the uterus because of what the pill does to the uterus. They're calling this an abortion.

What's being said here is that if a women ovulates while on the pill and that egg is fertilized, it won't be able to attach to the uterus because of what the pill does to the uterus. They're calling this an abortion.

And that's exactly what it is making the pill in that case an abortifacient.

The perspective is the closest you'll ever be to manhood, son.

trolling....Mabus....trolling....:killingme

The mall police will find your car in a handicapped spot and ticket u!:yahoo:

My understanding of an abortion is it's done on purpose. My understanding of a miscarriage is it's unintentional.

I tend to agree with you. However it's the knowing of what the possibility is while you use it. You won't know you even miscarried/aborted. Which is why it makes it very tricky. All we can say for sure is that it can/does cause it to happen. The person taking it may not even know or want that end result.

I think the key here is knowledge and what you know. For example if a pregnant women is injured and she requires a surgery that may cause the death of the unborn and the end result is the child dies. However that was not the intention. It's like trying to rescue two drowning people when you can only save one. You did not LET the other one die it happened in the course of trying to do something else. If that makes sense.

So condoms...OK the pill....bad. Natural family planning OK.

Disagree. Once the sperm and egg are met and fertilized it's DNA is the same as that of a 30 year old. While the child looks different it's the same person, no difference. This is why so many Christians reject the "pill" as an abortifacient. It prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the womb in essence allowing the egg to die.
The pill was intended to simply prevent ovulation. Of course it has side effects so, if it prevents attachment to the uterus wall, then it shouldn't be used.

Bottom line with me: I'm gonna use my brain and "protection" if I can't afford or don't want kids.

Can there be documented example of proof? If an embryo can't embed into the uterus it therefore aborts. A woman will have what appears to be a period, maybe heavier than usual or earlier than usual, or maybe normal. She would never know she conceived at that point. The medical explanation of how a pill works should suffice that it can happen.

That's the point. It's like lung cancer. Most people that get it are smokers, therefore you can logically make the connection; but since non-smokers can also get lung cancer, there is no aboslute proof that smoking causes it. At this point there is no real proof that the pill actually causes a miscarriage or abortion. And if you want to have an abortion you don't take the pill.

The medical term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion. It just isn't a mechanical abortion but rather a biological one OR one caused by an abortifacient such as certain birth control methods.

When we are talking about the difference between the two in intent, a miscarriage is an unintended event, an abortion is intended to end a pregnancy. I still challenge you to find any evidence that the pill CAUSED a miscarriage.

I don't have any examples. But we do know the pill is not 100% reliable. Reduction in the reliability is caused when the pill is not take every day or if it's taken every day but not at the same time each day. What's being said here is that if a women ovulates while on the pill and that egg is fertilized, it won't be able to attach to the uterus because of what the pill does to the uterus. They're calling this an abortion.

It's pretty weird; today I just happen to talk to a woman who is on her second pregnancy while on the pill. Her first child is 20 months old and this second one I think she is about 7 months into it. Each time she was on a different pill. So this assertion is wrong. I don’t even think there could be a reliable study to prove this assertion since most women probably don’t even know they’re pregnant. I’m certain it happens though, and if folks want to call it an abortion who really cares. It certainly doesn’t fall under the classic definition of ‘abortion’.

When we are talking about the difference between the two in intent, a miscarriage is an unintended event, an abortion is intended to end a pregnancy. I still challenge you to find any evidence that the pill CAUSED a miscarriage.

I'm sorry Psy, but you're just being dense. I take it you have a vested interested in the pill, well so be it. I'm just educating what apparently is some ignorance on the matter.



Good grief. :coffee:

I'm sorry Psy, but you're just being dense. I take it you have a vested interested in the pill, well so be it. I'm just educating what apparently is some ignorance on the matter.



Good grief. :coffee:

Because PsyOps dares to question your claims, does not mean PsyOps is being dense. Your beliefs and opinions are not the final authority on this matter.

It's pretty weird; today I just happen to talk to a woman who is on her second pregnancy while on the pill. Her first child is 20 months old and this second one I think she is about 7 months into it. Each time she was on a different pill. So this assertion is wrong. I don’t even think there could be a reliable study to prove this assertion since most women probably don’t even know they’re pregnant. I’m certain it happens though, and if folks want to call it an abortion who really cares. It certainly doesn’t fall under the classic definition of ‘abortion’.

Agreed.

I'm sorry Psy, but you're just being dense. I take it you have a vested interested in the pill, well so be it. I'm just educating what apparently is some ignorance on the matter.



Good grief. :coffee:

:lmao: A vested interest in the pill? :lmao: I don’t care one bit about the pill. I’m not trying to advocate the pill or any other form of birth control whatsoever.

I’m only trying to point out that there is no evidence that the pill causes miscarriages, especially when I gave you an example of someone that carried one child to term and is well into her second pregnancy while on the pill.

Because PsyOps dares to question your claims, does not mean PsyOps is being dense. Your beliefs and opinions are not the final authority on this matter.

It's okay, I'm kind of used to Radiant's insults. :lol:

:lmao: A vested interest in the pill? :lmao: I don’t care one bit about the pill. I’m not trying to advocate the pill or any other form of birth control whatsoever.

I’m only trying to point out that there is no evidence that the pill causes miscarriages, especially when I gave you an example of someone that carried one child to term and is well into her second pregnancy while on the pill.

Its been demonstrated that the pill causes abortion/ miscarriage. Reality is that the user will never know how many pregnancies the have terminated for obvious reasons.

Its been demonstrated that the pill causes abortion/ miscarriage. Reality is that the user will never know how many pregnancies the have terminated for obvious reasons.

Show me.

What causes miscarriages in women that don’t use the pill? How do you know that same reason isn’t what caused the miscarriage with the person that took the pill?

The evidence Psy is asking for can't be had for reasons already stated; however, evidence that the pill can also be an abortifacient is clear enough...unless, of course, your just dense.

Btw, [spontaneous] abortion or miscarriage, is mere semantics.

Hopefully, some of you have opened your eyes and are a little less ignorant regarding this issue. Make your informed choices as you will.

The evidence Psy is asking for can't be had for reasons already stated; however, evidence that the pill can also be an abortifacient is clear enough...unless, of course, your just dense.

Btw, [spontaneous] abortion or miscarriage, is mere semantics.

Hopefully, some of you have opened your eyes and are a little less ignorant regarding this issue. Make your informed choices as you will.

Once again, because someone might have a different view than yours does not mean they're dense. It's rather arrogant of you to think that if someone disagrees with you, they are somehow flawed.

It is documented that the pill does alter the development of the uterine walls as evidenced by liter flow during periods. It is speculated that this altered uterine development prevents implantation but it's just speculation. No Proof.

Because PsyOps dares to question your claims, does not mean PsyOps is being dense. Your beliefs and opinions are not the final authority on this matter.
Once again, because someone might have a different view than yours does not mean they're dense. It's rather arrogant of you to think that if someone disagrees with you, they are somehow flawed.

:notworthy Sure she's the final authority. Haven't you followed her in the religion forums? She is the Popette of the RCC................(but I still love her) :neener:

Show me.

What causes miscarriages in women that don’t use the pill? How do you know that same reason isn’t what caused the miscarriage with the person that took the pill?

Its a question with no answer. You know that. What we know is that the pill can cause abortion/miscarriage or pregnancy.....

Once again, because someone might have a different view than yours does not mean they're dense. It's rather arrogant of you to think that if someone disagrees with you, they are somehow flawed.

It is documented that the pill does alter the development of the uterine walls as evidenced by liter flow during periods. It is speculated that this altered uterine development prevents implantation but it's just speculation. No Proof.

Well call me rather arrogant twice over because I think you're dense as well. There's no proof of God, but yet you believe. What's so hard about this?

Its a question with no answer. You know that. What we know is that the pill can cause abortion/miscarriage or pregnancy.....

Thus my point... if you can't prove it with facts, then how can you claim it is. If you believe it's true, that's one thing; but trying to push it over as fact is quite another. I'm not saying I don't believe it the pill can cause an abortion. I think if a woman wants an abortion she is not going to use birth control pills, because that's not what birth control pills are for. They are for PREVENTING pregnancies; and by extension the need to have an aboriton due to an 'unwatned' pregnancy.

The evidence Psy is asking for can't be had for reasons already stated; however, evidence that the pill can also be an abortifacient is clear enough...unless, of course, your just dense.

Btw, [spontaneous] abortion or miscarriage, is mere semantics.

Hopefully, some of you have opened your eyes and are a little less ignorant regarding this issue. Make your informed choices as you will.

If you wanted to have an abortion are you going to ask your doctor for a prescription of birth control pills? Do you know anyone or can you cite any instances where birth control pills were used for an abortion?

If you say the word ‘abortion’ to any ordinary person (not a doctor) and they think of someone that makes a conscious decision to terminate a pregnancy. They go to a clinic and a procedure done to have the baby removed from the womb. When you say the word ‘miscarriage’ people will think of an unplanned event where the child is aborted by some unforeseen reason and against the mother’s will. From that standpoint there is no logic in saying birth control pills cause abortions, where they really cause miscarriages. But you know what? For the woman who is trying to NOT get pregnant, I imagine she doesn’t really care what we call it. There is a huge difference between someone that practices birth control (trying to avoid pregnancy) and someone who doesn’t but purposefully aborts the child.

Found this to be a good resource. The Abortifacient Effect of the Birth Control Pill (A Reading List) | Dr. Walt's Health Blog (http://www.drwalt.com/blog/?p=614)

After the second child was born, my wife and I talked at length, and prayed, about the health risks associated with various means of birth control in the female, including very long-term, and then we also talked about being able to properly support and educate more than two kids on a non-degreed income. We decided that I should have my tubes cut, which I did.

As a doctrine thing, I have to say that all doctrine ought to be easily traced to the Bible. Some of the mistakes we make are selectively applying the Laws of Moses to doctrine, interpreting scripture to mean something which is at best obscure, and taking things out of context to pervert their meaning.

And when we do make such mistakes, I wonder about asking the Lord what He thinks. Do we do that all the time? No. None of us do. We're human. But that then makes a lot of church-specific doctrine questionable, doesn't it? Something to think and pray about always.

Well call me rather arrogant twice over because I think you're dense as well.

Think it all you want. It's incorrect.


There's no proof of God, but yet you believe. What's so hard about this?

That's my choice.

This subject is near and dear to my heart. As a Catholic woman with lots of children, I fancy myself a bit of an authority on this subject.
My dh and I actually started practicing NFP this year, as I really feel my childbearing years are over.
It has been a blessing like neither of us imagined, and this is further confirmation to me that God is with the Catholic Church.

A few things I've noticed in my marriage because of NFP.
NFP has allowed me to understand my husband's desires like never before. Because we have to abstain during the time when I am most interested, I have developed a sympathy for him that I didn't have before.
Because of his generosity in abstaining during the fertile time, I am happy to be generous during the safe times. We have both noticed the effort the other one is making (which, truth be told, I can't say it's much of an effort). We are both truly giving of ourselves, as opposed...perhaps, to taking.
Culturally, there is the notion that women have to feign a headache, or some such thing, to get...peace(?) from their husbands? Not so in our experience, which goes back to the giving aspect of NFP.

Protestants, as a group, I think, would agree with the Catholic position that sex between husband and wife is sacred. When we participate in something sacred, how is it we can justify holding back some part of ourselves?
God gave us the urge for sex, but that doesn't mean, even within marriage, that there should be no discipline, no sacrifice.
Eating is a natural urge/instinct as well, however, does anyone here think that we should be able to eat whatever/whenever we want, just because God gave us the urge, and because food is necessary to survival?
Anyway. That's my $0.02 for the day. I'll be back to check on this thread because it is a most interesting topic!

Hey just because the roller coasters out of service does not mean you have to shut down the entire amusement park!! :killingme

Bottom line with me: I'm gonna use my brain and "protection" if I can't afford or don't want kids.

You won't be getting anyone pregnant anytime soon. That requires intercourse with a woman - a foreign concept to you.

You won't be getting anyone pregnant anytime soon. That requires intercourse with a woman - a foreign concept to you.

Your still a troll. Do you understand? A foreign concept to you?

Your still a troll. Do you understand? A foreign concept to you?

You didn't learn the "your vs you're" lesson and you sound like a parrot. Try again.

You won't be getting anyone pregnant anytime soon. That requires intercourse with a woman - a foreign concept to you.
You should join us one Friday Night and see if you're as mouthy in person...:howdy:

You should join us one Friday Night and see if you're as mouthy in person...:howdy:

That would require a minimum level of courage.

You should join us one Friday Night and see if you're as mouthy in person...:howdy:

You always knew who the Italian kids were in school. Scrawny pricks who watched Rocky then picked a fight with the football team, only to get pummeled back into their feminine state.

You should join us one Friday Night and see if you're as mouthy in person...:howdy:

wow! Really letting someone get to you like that? Thou shalt not make veiled threats....Remember the 11 Commandments, brotha!!

You always knew who the Italian kids were in school. Scrawny pricks who watched Rocky then picked a fight with the football team, only to get pummeled back into their feminine state.
Face it, you're YELLOW. Show up or shut up! And if you really knew Italian kids and you mouthed off to them, you wouldn't be posting today...
wow! Really letting someone get to you like that? Thou shalt not make veiled threats....Remember the 11 Commandments, brotha!!
Not a threat at all. I just want to call the punk out and see if he's as mouthy in person. I have no intention of hitting him, I just want to see what a big mouth on a twiggy body looks like...

You always knew who the Italian kids were in school. Scrawny pricks who watched Rocky then picked a fight with the football team, only to get pummeled back into their feminine state.

It takes courage to stand up to the football team knowing you’ll probably get your butt whooped.

It shows REAL courage to play cyber bully and mouth off about people you don’t even know in a forum, in the security of your mother’s basement. :sarcasm:

D4JZziaLcQI

This thread is really hyjacked....

:coffee:

The pill was intended to simply prevent ovulation. Of course it has side effects so, if it prevents attachment to the uterus wall, then it shouldn't be used.

Bottom line with me: I'm gonna use my brain and "protection" if I can't afford or don't want kids.

The marriage relationship is supposed to be the same as Christ's relationship with the church. Christ gave us everything and held nothing back. We are to give Him all of ourselves without reservation. If you can trust His judgement on all matters in your life, then you can trust Him with your fertility.

God did not give us our brains for thinking our way out of doing His Will.

The marriage relationship is supposed to be the same as Christ's relationship with the church. Christ gave us everything and held nothing back. We are to give Him all of ourselves without reservation. If you can trust His judgement on all matters in your life, then you can trust Him with your fertility.
God did not give us our brains for thinking our way out of doing His Will.
He didn't? So then, God gives us everything we ask for? Did you and your hubby have sex those 8 times specifically to get you pregnant? If I had unprotected sex every time I wanted it, I would have a harem full of kids today. God gave us brains so that wouldn't happen. Unprotected sex, at certain times, causes kids regardless of if we pray against it or not.

Why don't you go out and spend yourself into the poor house and tell God to "handle it"? It's the same with sexual intercourse. WE have to be responsible and it's not disobeying God when we are. Sex isn't only for making kids...

Speaking of birth control.... My son and daughter-in-law are expecting another baby.... that's the third....:yahoo:

They are delighted.... :yahoo:

Abby is 8, Brad is 4, and the new addition is due in March! :yahoo:

IMHO that's what it's all about.... :yahoo:

All this bickering about birth control just turns people away from the joy of children.... and maybe even the Truth of the Gospel....

Gifts from God.... AWESOME:yahoo:

:coffee:

And I have no problem with that myself. I just don't think that all forms of BC are wrong...

Every Form of oral contraceptive has an abortification element to it! Birth Control is abortion.

Every Form of oral contraceptive has an abortification element to it! Birth Control is abortion.

Spitting??

D4JZziaLcQI

Hank, I disagree with you on most things, but on this we be buds. "The Wanderers" is one of my favorite movies of all time. I especially like this quote, concerning this thread, from the movie:

[Richie is facing Chubby after he gets Despi pregnant]
Chubby Galasso: I don't blame you. When I was your age, I was knockin' 'em off left and right; but I never did it with nobody's daughter.

You should have given her an ankle bracelet and stuck to jerkin' off!

Pretty sure a lot of dads, regardless of faith belief, could go with that last line, concerning the topic of this thread - birth control.

He didn't? So then, God gives us everything we ask for? Did you and your hubby have sex those 8 times specifically to get you pregnant? If I had unprotected sex every time I wanted it, I would have a harem full of kids today. God gave us brains so that wouldn't happen. Unprotected sex, at certain times, causes kids regardless of if we pray against it or not.

Why don't you go out and spend yourself into the poor house and tell God to "handle it"? It's the same with sexual intercourse. WE have to be responsible and it's not disobeying God when we are. Sex isn't only for making kids...

The intimate relationship between a husband and wife is not the same as any other relationship in our lives. That relationship is the only relationship between two people that is sacramental; it is a mystery how the two become one, supernaturally.
You would not have a harem full of kids if you exercised some discipline. One could make the same "God gave us a brain" argument to defend having an abortion. Just because mankind has come up with a pill, or a procedure, doesn't mean that it is good.
Not spending yourself into the poorhouse requires that you control your spending and go to work 40 hrs. a week. Not having 28 children requires not having sex whenever you want if you are not ready for the blessing of children. Not gaining 300lbs. requires eating well and exercising. Or perhaps you are one who thinks stomach stapling, or diet pills are being responsible? Or you think that work is a waste when the gov't is there to do it for you? Why is sexuality any different?
It is not just for procreation, but neither is it just for recreation. And the damage that using artificial contraception does is like a cancer; you don't know it's there until the damage is already done.

Every Form of oral contraceptive has an abortification element to it! Birth Control is abortion.
Is that it's main intent or a side effect, Dr ST? Many pills have unintentional side effects; should people stop taking ALL pills because of that?

You would not have a harem full of kids if you exercised some discipline. One could make the same "God gave us a brain" argument to defend having an abortion.
You always did have a knack for making these extreme comparisons Libby. Why not say: We should never die because God gave us a brain?

Just because mankind has come up with a pill, or a procedure, doesn't mean that it is good.
You're right, and that's where our brain takes over.

Not having 28 children requires not having sex whenever you want if you are not ready for the blessing of children. Why is sexuality any different? It is not just for procreation, but neither is it just for recreation.
Paul feels differently: 1 Corinthians 7 v 5...

So I shouldn't have sex when I want to and have it when I don't want to? :jameo:

So I shouldn't have sex when I want to and have it when I don't want to? :jameo:
You are talking only having sex once you are in a married relationship, right?

You are talking only having sex once you are in a married relationship, right?

I would definitely say in the context of marriage, as laid out (oohhhh.....) in the Bible. And the Bible does very much promote having sexual relations, with one's spouse, in the context of marriage.

I can't say positively what IS would say, but I am pretty sure, based on his posts on Christianity and that Bible, we would agree that sex would be in the context of marriage.

Ain't no better way.

Every Form of oral contraceptive has an abortification element to it! Birth Control is abortion.

Don't you mean abortion is birth control? If you have prevented conception, how can there be an abortion?

Don't you mean abortion is birth control? If you have prevented conception, how can there be an abortion?

Nicely stated.

You always did have a knack for making these extreme comparisons Libby. Why not say: We should never die because God gave us a brain?

You're right, and that's where our brain takes over.

Paul feels differently: 1 Corinthians 7 v 5...

So I shouldn't have sex when I want to and have it when I don't want to? :jameo:

You completely failed to address a single thing I said.

You are talking only having sex once you are in a married relationship, right?
Yes.
You completely failed to address a single thing I said.
No, I didn't. I separated your post into 3 parts and addressed most of what you said. :shrug:

Yes.

No, I didn't. I separated your post into 3 parts and addressed most of what you said. :shrug:

No, you didn't. Is it your position that a healthy weight should be achieved by puking up whatever you ate that you should not have? Is it your position that putting food on the table for you family can legitimately be accomplished by stealing money, because your brain has allowed you to find a way to scam people?

Why is it any different for sex? Because you don't want to say 'no' to sex when you get the chance? Because in our sex saturated culture, no man has been told, since he got his first urge at age...12(?), that he needs to control that urge? Relieve yourself, period.
God ordained sex as a life giving and intimate gift that a husband and wife give exclusively to each other. The relationship between Christ and the church gives new life, spiritual life and earthly life, to those who enter into the covenant with Him. If the former is a reflection of the latter, how can you say that you should interrupt what may be God's Will?
Perhaps God knew how abused sexuality would be? Perhaps that is why is ordered cycles in women, and the insatiable urge in men, precisely so that we COULD show our love for each other by total giving, as I tried to explain in my first post.
Nope. It's what you want, when you want it. You sound like a Democrat.

You sound like a Democrat.

:killingme

Is that it's main intent or a side effect, Dr ST? Many pills have unintentional side effects; should people stop taking ALL pills because of that?

It really dosent matter! The outcome is the same.

Don't you mean abortion is birth control? If you have prevented conception, how can there be an abortion?


"Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?"

The Pill has three mechanisms of action which can easily be looked up in the Physician's Desk Reference.

1) Sometimes, the Pill suppresses ovulation. When this happens, an egg is not released and conception cannot occur. (It's important to read on and find out about the high rates of breakthrough ovulation. When ovulation is not suppressed, pregnancy can occur.)


2) The Pill also works to thicken the woman's cervical mucus which can "restrict" sperm from moving up the reproductive tract toward the egg.


3) One way the Pill causes early abortions is that it interfers with the flexing motions and the cilia movement of the fallopian tubes. These changes slow the transportation of newly conceived child from the fallopian tubes to the womb. Unfortunately, many small babies starve to death in the fallopian tubes because chemicals caused changes that prevented them from reaching the womb in time to be nourished.

4) Another way the Pill causes early abortions: If your tiny baby survives the ride down the fallopian tube to your womb, the Pill will almost always cause the endometrium (the lining of your uterus) to reject your child. Chemical reactions often cause the lining of your womb to become thin, shriveled and unable to support implantation of your newly conceived child.

This means that in almost every case, your new child will not be able to attach to the wall of your womb where he or she would normally live, grow and receive nourishment for 9 months. This means your tiny baby will starve to death and his or her remains will be passed along in your next bleeding cycle. (The "Study of Abortion Deaths Commission" estimates that this happens in women in America who use the Pill approximately 1 to 4 million times each year.)

The chemicals that cause these early abortions are called abortifacients which is the medical term for any chemical agent that causes an abortion.

. "Does the birth control pill cause abortions? Using research results from medical literature, Randy Alcorn has convincingly shown that the answer is `yes.' He has, with care and compassion, given us the truth. The question for us as Christians is how we will respond now that we know."

~ Linda Martin, M.D., Pediatrician

"Scientific papers suggest that escape ovulation occurs 4-15% of all cycles in patients taking birth control pills. Thus, as this booklet points out, early chemical abortions are a real and significant concern."

~ Paddy Jim Baggot, M.D., Ob/Gyn, Fellow of the American College of Medical Genetics

You may go to Randy Alcorn's web site and read a summary of this 88-page book by clicking here (http://www.epm.org/articles/bcp5400.html). You may also order the inexpensive book from his site.

More facts about the Pill, IUDs, Depo-Provera and Norplant:

Again, if you're reading about CHEMICAL ABORTIONS for the first time, this may surprise, or even shock you. Most Americans are not aware that the Pill and other chemical "contraceptives" cause millions of "non-surgical" abortions each year in the early weeks of pregnancy. If you are using the Pill, Depo-Provera or Norplant, you need to know the truth about how these products work.

Most women take these "contraceptives" because they don't want to have a baby. But how many women know they can have BREAKTHROUGH OVULATIONS and become pregnant while using these "contraceptives?" Very few! And how many of these women know that if they become pregnant after a BREAKTHROUGH OVULATION, these "contraceptives" will almost always kill any son or daughter they've conceived?

Most people don't know the real facts about how "contraceptives" work. And because of this lack of knowledge, most women are not aware that they may be having BREAKTHROUGH OVULATIONS, and conceiving children that are killed very early in the pregnancy. Women using these "contraceptives" almost never perceive that they have become pregnant, or that chemicals have killed their tiny baby.

What is Breakthrough Ovulation?

While using the Pill and other chemical "birth control" products, many women's ovaries continue to release eggs. This is called "Breakthrough Ovulation" and it occurs in millions of women each year. Once an egg has been released via ovulation, a woman can become pregnant.



You can still conceive a child . . .

If you're using "birth control" products and you have a breakthrough ovulation that releases an egg, sperm can then reach and fertilize your egg. At that moment -- you would be pregnant! Fertilization means conception has taken place and you now have a brand new son or daughter who is as complete genetically as he or she will ever be throughout life.


Birth Control Pill Causes Abortions -- Pro-Life America, Celebs expose abortion! Celebrities, Speakers, TV, Radio, Videos and Literature to help save moms and babies from the pain and suffering of abortion. Save sex for marriage and choose life, not (http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html)

"Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?"

The Pill has three mechanisms of action which can easily be looked up in the Physician's Desk Reference................ :cds: :cds: :cds:

I'm not reading all of that. We're talking about two different things. You want to base things on medical explanations that's fine.

I'm talking what the intent of using THE PILL is. It is intended to PREVENT getting pregnant. If it fails and causes a MISCARRIAGE then that's what it does. In the classic sense of what a miscarriage and abortion is, the pill does not cause an abortion. Abortions are commonly known to be a procedure that is perform on someone that KNOWS they are pregnant and want to terminate that pregnancy. The pill is not used for this purpose. It is not prescribed for this purpose. A pregnant woman does not walk into an abortion clinic and ask for birth control pills to have an abortion. A doctor that performs abortions does not do so with birth control pills. If someone takes the pill and accidentally gets pregnant and loses that baby, THAT is a miscarriage. First is was unintentional to get pregnant, then it was unintentional to lose the baby. As I mentioned before, I met a girl last week that is now several months into her second pregnancy while on birth control pills. The first one went to term and is a perfectly healthy child. So birth control pills does not always result in preventing pregnancy, and it doesn’t always result in a miscarriage.

I'm not going to read that because I want to defend my position even though proven wrong three times over and choose to keep my blind eye!

You can rant all you want, it doesn't change the reality. If you choose to use the pill then you choose to potentially and statistically kill your babies, and that may be your choice, but it is what it is. Get over it already.

As for your friend? Good for her! Two children got by and survived, praise God! :clap:

No, you didn't. Is it your position that a healthy weight should be achieved by puking up whatever you ate that you should not have? Is it your position that putting food on the table for you family can legitimately be accomplished by stealing money, because your brain has allowed you to find a way to scam people?
Why all this drama? I don't fault your method if that's what you BOTH want, I just said it wasn't for me. The RCC is not the authority on reproduction so you shouldn't treat them as such.

Sex doesn't always have to be intercourse & orgasm. I've had great "sex" w/o intercourse in my "BC" years and it made for a great variety of "play". In those cases, birth control methods aren't necessary and both people are satisfied (when both parties care enough and it's done properly).

Why is it any different for sex? Because you don't want to say 'no' to sex when you get the chance? Because in our sex saturated culture, no man has been told, since he got his first urge at age...12(?), that he needs to control that urge? Relieve yourself, period.
Obviously you don't understand the Italian male :really: I hate to say no to sex but, again, sex doesn't always mean intercourse & orgasm, ya know. "Relieve myself"? :shocked:

God ordained sex as a life giving and intimate gift that a husband and wife give exclusively to each other. The relationship between Christ and the church gives new life, spiritual life and earthly life, to those who enter into the covenant with Him. If the former is a reflection of the latter, how can you say that you should interrupt what may be God's Will?
Who's "interrupting God's will" Libby? Does God take care of every unwanted kid in this world? Until He does, it's up to us don't you think?
Do you like those starving African commercials with those fly ridden kids?
Would God blame me for that?
Would He say: Keep up the good work there Tyronne or would He expect them to make better decisions?

Perhaps God knew how abused sexuality would be? Perhaps that is why is ordered cycles in women, and the insatiable urge in men, precisely so that we COULD show our love for each other by total giving, as I tried to explain in my first post. Nope. It's what you want, when you want it. You sound like a Democrat.
Sure God knew and that's why He made the rules for sex & marriage as strict as they are. I'm convinced that womens "cycles" are there to punish men... Paul says there should be NO depriving each other of sex EXCEPT by mutual consent. If my wife doesn't want sex at certain times, I can live with that but not for long or very often or she wouldn't be my wife...
:killingme
:killingme :shrug:
It really dosent matter! The outcome is the same.
You're right, it duzzen't...:howdy:

You can rant all you want, it doesn't change the reality. If you choose to use the pill then you choose to potentially and statistically kill your babies, and that may be your choice, but it is what it is. Get over it already.

As for your friend? Good for her! Two children got by and survived, praise God! :clap:

This is getting really tedious… Please go back into this thread where I have stated that I am not supporting the use of the pill. I am not trying to come to any sort of moral conclusion here. From that standpoint there is nothing for me to get over. The fact of the matter is women get birth control pills to CONTROL birth, CONTROL getting pregnant. It is used as a method to avoid getting pregnant. From that standpoint, when the pill is successful, there is no real difference between that and a woman who has sex during her cycle where she is not ovulating or abstains from sex and the egg cell is removed during the period cycle. Again, this is not a moral statement about when the pill fails to do this. My statements are based on the belief with most women that they are taking it to prevent getting pregnant.

If you want to drag me into a moral discussion about this then you just let me know, but this is where I stand in this discussion right now.

There is absolutely no reason for you to get into a snit with me everytime you disagree with me. This is not personal for me, but you're sure trying to make it that way.

This is getting really tedious… Please go back into this thread where I have stated that I am not supporting the use of the pill. I am not trying to come to any sort of moral conclusion here. From that standpoint there is nothing for me to get over.

If you're not supporting the use of the pill, then why do you keep going on about it? :confused:

The fact of the matter is women get birth control pills to CONTROL birth, CONTROL getting pregnant. It is used as a method to avoid getting pregnant. From that standpoint, when the pill is successful, there is no real difference between that and a woman who has sex during her cycle where she is not ovulating or abstains from sex and the egg cell is removed during the period cycle. Again, this is not a moral statement about when the pill fails to do this. My statements are based on the belief with most women that they are taking it to prevent getting pregnant.

An often an abortive method at that. I don't care about your semantics, abortion/miscarriage, the reality is the same. I'm not sure why you keep denying that reality.

Of course it's a moral issue. If it wasn't then you wouldn't be going on about semantics and intentions and instead accept the medical evidence presented. Taking the pill is not the same as the rhythm method as you propose due to the fact the way the pill often works. Anyone who knows how the pill works and chooses to use it anyway is taking a chance on killing their baby. Make your choices as you will, but it is what it is.

If you want to drag me into a moral discussion about this then you just let me know, but this is where I stand in this discussion right now.

There is absolutely no reason for you to get into a snit with me everytime you disagree with me. This is not personal for me, but you're sure trying to make it that way.

If I were in a snit I'd have a lot more choice words to describe you than "dense". :lol:

(And btw, if you find things getting tedious, then just stop already. The points have been made, let them stand as they are.)

If you're not supporting the use of the pill, then why do you keep going on about it? :confused:

Because it’s what I do in a discussion, when I disagree with the context of what’s being discussed. I am agnostic when it comes to the pill. As with so many things I personally disagree with, but I believe we live in a country of freedom and liberty that allows people to make their own choices and live with their own consequences both personally and spiritually.

An often an abortive method at that. I don't care about your semantics, abortion/miscarriage, the reality is the same. I'm not sure why you keep denying that reality.

Of course it's a moral issue. If it wasn't then you wouldn't be going on about semantics and intentions and instead accept the medical evidence presented. Taking the pill is not the same as the rhythm method as you propose due to the fact the way the pill often works. Anyone who knows how the pill works and chooses to use it anyway is taking a chance on killing their baby. Make your choices as you will, but it is what it is.

If I were in a snit I'd have a lot more choice words to describe you than "dense". :lol:

(And btw, if you find things getting tedious, then just stop already. The points have been made, let them stand as they are.)

You’re pretty adamant about others feeling about this the same way you do, and when they don’t you get pretty upset about it. I have been married a total of 23 years. My ex and my current wife used the pill. My ex had problems getting pregnant and went through a series of procedures to remedy this. I learned a lot about cycles, periods, timing, and the pill and how all these things affect the ability of a woman to get pregnant. You are looking at this from a narrow prism medical definitions and of your faith. And I don’t have a problem with that. I can’t have a problem with that. I respect your concerns about it. I am approaching this from a logical/personal position: women, by-and-large, obtain birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Doctors prescribe it from this mindset. Women, by-and-large, do not use birth control with the thought in mind “I know medical terminology says this causes abortions”. Doctors don’t even prescribe it from that thinking. As I stated before, when a woman wants an abortion they do not ask for birth control pills. When a woman wants an abortion, an abortion doctor does not give her birth control pills.

I have stated this sort of thing a lot in this forum and I’ll do it again… I am against abortion, I am against gay marriage, I am not necessarily comfortable with using birth control pills for a bunch of different reasons; but I am far more against any government or group or entity trying to forbid people from having such choices in their lives. It is no one’s business (government, religion, or otherwise) how a person makes such decisions. We make our own choices and live with the consequences. If a woman wants to discuss their options with me and wants my opinion, I will tell her and leave it at that. But I refuse to approach these discussions from the standpoint that we have to have a system – whether religious or government – that bans such personal choices.

women, by-and-large, obtain birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Doctors prescribe it from this mindset. Women, by-and-large, do not use birth control with the thought in mind “I know medical terminology says this causes abortions”. Doctors don’t even prescribe it from that thinking. As I stated before, when a woman wants an abortion they do not ask for birth control pills. When a woman wants an abortion, an abortion doctor does not give her birth control pills.:yay: :yay:

I have stated this sort of thing a lot in this forum and I’ll do it again… I am against abortion, I am against gay marriage, I am not necessarily comfortable with using birth control pills for a bunch of different reasons; but I am far more against any government or group or entity trying to forbid people from having such choices in their lives. It is no one’s business (government, religion, or otherwise) how a person makes such decisions. We make our own choices and live with the consequences. If a woman wants to discuss their options with me and wants my opinion, I will tell her and leave it at that. But I refuse to approach these discussions from the standpoint that we have to have a system – whether religious or government – that bans such personal choices.Well said.

Because it’s what I do in a discussion, when I disagree with the context of what’s being discussed. I am agnostic when it comes to the pill. As with so many things I personally disagree with, but I believe we live in a country of freedom and liberty that allows people to make their own choices and live with their own consequences both personally and spiritually.



You’re pretty adamant about others feeling about this the same way you do, and when they don’t you get pretty upset about it. I have been married a total of 23 years. My ex and my current wife used the pill. My ex had problems getting pregnant and went through a series of procedures to remedy this. I learned a lot about cycles, periods, timing, and the pill and how all these things affect the ability of a woman to get pregnant. You are looking at this from a narrow prism medical definitions and of your faith. And I don’t have a problem with that. I can’t have a problem with that. I respect your concerns about it. I am approaching this from a logical/personal position: women, by-and-large, obtain birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Doctors prescribe it from this mindset. Women, by-and-large, do not use birth control with the thought in mind “I know medical terminology says this causes abortions”. Doctors don’t even prescribe it from that thinking. As I stated before, when a woman wants an abortion they do not ask for birth control pills. When a woman wants an abortion, an abortion doctor does not give her birth control pills.

I have stated this sort of thing a lot in this forum and I’ll do it again… I am against abortion, I am against gay marriage, I am not necessarily comfortable with using birth control pills for a bunch of different reasons; but I am far more against any government or group or entity trying to forbid people from having such choices in their lives. It is no one’s business (government, religion, or otherwise) how a person makes such decisions. We make our own choices and live with the consequences. If a woman wants to discuss their options with me and wants my opinion, I will tell her and leave it at that. But I refuse to approach these discussions from the standpoint that we have to have a system – whether religious or government – that bans such personal choices.

What ARE you going on about now?

1) I don't care if people use the pill. As I've said, the choice is theirs. All I care is that it's an informed choice. You, sir, are not informed if you insist that the pill is not an abortifacient or that the intention of using it makes a difference in the reality.
2) It's apparent you do have a personal stake in this discussion from what you've written above. That explains your adamant obtuseness and silly semantics.
3) This thread was never about forcing anyone to do anything.

Go ahead, have the last word. I have no doubt you'll take it. :lol:

What ARE you going on about now?

1) I don't care if people use the pill. As I've said, the choice is theirs. All I care is that it's an informed choice. You, sir, are not informed if you insist that the pill is not an abortifacient or that the intention of using it makes a difference in the reality.
2) It's apparent you do have a personal stake in this discussion from what you've written above. That explains your adamant obtuseness and silly semantics.
3) This thread was never about forcing anyone to do anything.

Go ahead, have the last word. I have no doubt you'll take it. :lol:

You seem to forget these are discussions. There is no such thing as the last word. I am not trying to get the last word. I post my opinions and wait for your response. If you are tiring of this then let me know and I’ll graciously give you the last word.

1) I am of the opinion that with so many things in our society (voting, investing/saving, sex, birth control, etc…), people largely do not make informed decisions. They rely on other sources to inform them. I am not denying the pill is an abortifacient, as defined by the medical community. I am saying that this is not what the vast majority of women are going into using it are even remotely thinking it is.

2) I’ll say the same thing to you as I said to Giantone in a different thread: “There is no higher level of ignorance than to think that everyone that disagrees with you is a moron.” (in this case accusing me of being obtuse). You refuse to accept that people have different opinions than you, and if they do they are obtuse, ignorant, a moron, etc… Sad that your thinking is so narrow, and you can't keep discussions in the vein of respect. Makes me really wonder where some Christians hearts are.

3) That is until someone brings it up. :shrug: