The body can "naturally" space children without any "preventative measures."
Originally posted by okinrus
I don't think the issue here is birth control. The Church accepts the rhythm method, which is entirely natural, but not contraceptive. So if need be, population could be controled without resorting to contraceptive.
I think here you must be referring to the Catholic Church. I am not Catholic, nor accept the Pope as God's representative. I am Protestant. Up until at least the 1930s, all the Church, Protestant and Catholic, preached against limiting family size. Where they wrong, or are we wrong now? Contraceptives were thought to be bizarre or associated with "dirty sex." Up until the 1950s, the cost of having children wasn't even counted. People just had them. I am more interested in what the Bible actually says, than what the Pope might claim. When I read "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" in Genesis, I think that sort of means, don't use "preventative measures" to limit family size. That means probably not even using rhythm. When people are married, the man should feel free to naturally cum inside his wife, regardless of family size, the way sex was designed to be. Married couples shouldn't have to hold anything back. People should look to God's ways, not the world's ways and selfishness.
"Children are the fruit of love."
The whole underlying idea of "birth control," would seem to be that children aren't really a blessing. So isn't "birth control" the foundation of the abortion holocaust. Because I believe children are very valuable and well worth having, what place is there then for anti-life "birth control?" God can choose the number of children we have for us. Humans really shouldn't worry about limiting our offspring. Surely most every child would be glad to have been conceived and live? How could I ever choose which child I wish I never had, even if I did manage to have "too many?"
A couple of people were talking at work about Catholics accepting rhythm. Why do they do that? Isn't the intent to still not have children?
I don't see so much distinction between "artificial" and "natural" "family planning." Is rhythm really all that practical? Don't people feel like having sex, even a little more during the most fertile time of the month? I would much rather go ahead and have the "bonus" children than bother with rhythm. Is it "natural" to not want to be blessed (with children)?
Rather what seems more "natural" to me, is to let the body "naturally" space out the children, with the normal delays of fertility that come with a progressing pregnancy, and sometimes with normal breastfeeding, until the baby can eat solid food. I don't believe God created humans too fertile, and that the body (or God's providence) sort of "knows" when to get pregnant. So contraceptives or rhythm isn't even necessary. Practicing "birth control" only makes people become addicted to "birth control" by unnaturally maintaining periods of high fertility by interfering with the body's reproductive cycle. If women have periods where their body keeps trying to get pregnant, why not just let the pregnancy occur naturally, if it happens? Why must we always fight nature when there is no benefit in doing so? Why worry about having a "perfect little planned" family of 3 or 4 children, when one can have an even more fulfilling experience relying on God and having a little faith, and have an "unplanned" family of 5 or 6 children? I see nothing wrong with having a few "bonus" children. I would rather have "bonus" children than bother with anti-life "birth control." I reject the whole premise of "birth control." I don't think it does anything to make society or quality of life, any better. It is "birth control" that is useless.
