I think birth control is a sin but my husband doesnt want children [moved]

[Sabertooth]

It was how he skipped out on it. He pretended to fulfill his duty, but in the act he didn't. It was a contraceptive act. He made the sexual act a lie. And God killed him on the spot for it.

[Remember, this is the Quiverfull forum. We eschew contraception, but do not see it as a mortal sin.]

As alluded to above, death was unprecedented for this type of offense. The most likely explanation for Onan is that he was deliberately interfering with God's plan to produce the Savior through Judah's line.

 

[chevyontheriver]

natural family planning? seterilisation???

when you say BC is a sin do you mean the pill which can stop fertilised eggs implanting (abortion, in other words)? i assume when people say BC is pill they mean because some pills are a form of abortion?

Some think that because birth control pills can act as abortion inducers their use is immoral on that grounds.

Others agree but see something in addition to and independent of that. We consider that each and every sexual act should be open to life, not putting up any physical or chemical barriers. Not that sex is only for procreation, or that we must make babies at each and every turn, but that procreation is one of the purposes of sex, and to actively work against it is wrong.

 

[chevyontheriver]

[Remember, this is the Quiverfull forum. We eschew contraception, but do not see it as a mortal sin.]

Yes. I am trying to be respectful of the forum even if I do have a different point of view. Mine follows Catholic moral teaching, and I understand that even in our similarities we may have some disagreements

As alluded to above, death was unprecedented for this type of offense. The most likely explanation for Onan is that he was deliberately interfering with God's plan to produce the Savior through Judah's line.

That would make God rather arbitrary, excusing the sin of Onan when others committed it but killing Onan when he did it. It makes more sense (to me anyhow) that Onan could have said 'no' but said 'yes' and then did a 'no'. Independent of the lineage of Jesus.

 

[Sabertooth]

Yes. I am trying to be respectful of the forum even if I do have a different point of view. Mine follows Catholic moral teaching, and I understand that even in our similarities we may have some disagreements

Most here still agree about abortifacient contraception, but there is grace for true ignorance.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Most here still agree about abortifacient contraception, but there is grace for true ignorance.

Yes, there is a grace in true ignorance. Sometime called 'invincible ignorance'.

 

[Paidiske]

It makes more sense (to me anyhow) that Onan could have said 'no' but said 'yes' and then did a 'no'.

It does make sense, but then it wouldn't apply to every couple, but only to Onan's particular circumstance where he refused to fulfil his obligations in regard to his dead brother. That obligation doesn't bind every couple.

 

[bèlla]

Although you’ve had a change of heart, consideration flows in two directions. You agreed to a childless marriage. Less than three years in you’ve changed your mind. If you want him to empathize with your feelings you can’t ignore his.

Compromise requires mutual respect and a willingness to listen. I would clarify why you want a child and ask him why he disagrees. Meet in the middle if you can.

Given your age you may want to have a checkup to make certain all is well. I’d invest in an ovulation tracker. It would reenforce the shared experience of creating a child. Before I sprung it on him, I’d do my homework about fertility and having children later in life.

You have to plan for possibilities. What if you require fertility treatments? Does your insurance cover it? Do you know any women your age starting families? Pregnancy books for women over 35 are worth reading too.

How’s your health? Diet? Caffeine intake? Exercise frequency? Its wise to prepare the body beforehand if you can. For pregnancy related questions, What to Expect forum is pretty good. I read the book when I was pregnant.

~Bella

 

[chevyontheriver]

It does make sense, but then it wouldn't apply to every couple, but only to Onan's particular circumstance where he refused to fulfil his obligations in regard to his dead brother. That obligation doesn't bind every couple.

I see what you are saying. Onan lied with his body but that it only matters in a levirate marriage situation. I think that it would apply much more broadly to every sexual act. And that was the common teaching of Christians up to 90 years ago.

 

[Paidiske]

I see what you are saying. Onan lied with his body but that it only matters in a levirate marriage situation. I think that it would apply much more broadly to every sexual act. And that was the common teaching of Christians up to 90 years ago.

Onan lied with his body, in a situation where the only reason that marriage existed was to provide the woman with a child.

That's not what every marriage is, though. And the kind of sophisticated reasoning you're giving here was not commonly held in the past; it is a much more recent development in your tradition, which needed to justify a position most other Christians find unnecessary.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Onan lied with his body, in a situation where the only reason that marriage existed was to provide the woman with a child.

That's not what every marriage is, though. And the kind of sophisticated reasoning you're giving here was not commonly held in the past; it is a much more recent development in your tradition, which needed to justify a position most other Christians find unnecessary.

It was common enough in all of Christianity until the 1930 Lambeth Conference. Actually the Lambeth Conference before that one had a very compatible view to the Catholic one, rather nicely explained. Better than Catholics did before John Paul's 'Theology of the Body'. That view is not a recent development but something quite old. Giving up that view to adopt contraception is the recent development.

 

[Paidiske]

As you point out, theological anthropology tailored to answer this question (like Theology of the Body) is recent. Before that, it was much less clearly defined, and open to more points of view.

 

[Sabertooth]

The pros & cons of contraception are off-topic in the Quiverfull sub-forum. Maybe that dialogue could be moved to Philosophy & Ethics?

 

[Sabertooth]

AFAICT, the main difference between QF & the RCC POV is that the former doesn't center our sex lives around getting pregnant, we just avail ourselves to that possibility.

 

[chevyontheriver]

AFAICT, the main difference between QF & the RCC POV is that the former doesn't center our sex lives around getting pregnant, we just avail ourselves to that possibility.

I'm not sure who in this discussion thinks that our sex lives center on getting pregnant. The Catholic POV is that individual sex acts should be open to all of the purposes of sex, closed to none. Not that any particular purpose HAS to be central.

I get it that your forum is made uncomfortable by what I have said here. And uncomfortable about my saying that before 90 years ago we would all have been on the same page. It's not 90 years ago any more and things have changed. So I will bow out and not interfere any more.