Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: kilroy@mimsy.umd.edu (Nancy's Sweetie) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Birth control Message-ID: Date: 15 Jan 90 21:00:29 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Lines: 218 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu It is important to note that the Scriptures do not directly address the topic of contraception (reliable technology did not yet exist), and any determinations must therefore rest in part on human reasoning and interpretation, which (as we all know) is somewhat prone to error. I read Tom Albrecht's recent posting with interest, and will attempt to show areas in which I believe his conclusions are faulty. (Tom's article primarily addresses sterilisation, but some of his comments seem to apply equally well to contraception in general.) In his introduction, Tom makes a statement which does not actually contain any argument but which I comment on because it raises my hackles a bit: > Birth control is a means by which women can have a career and children on >the side. To the feminists, children become yet another possession like a >house or a car. You can have as many or as few as you want. This section, especially the second sentence, is bothersome: not only does it seem to require knowledge of another person's motivations, it makes the most uncharitable estimation possible. Unless you can read another person's heart, I have to question your qualifications to make this statement. In addition, you have implied that all feminists think exactly alike, and that only feminists advocate birth control. How can we know what another person's reasons are for wanting a small family? Later on, Tom has a section about `be not conformed to the world', which doesn't make any real argument but which I felt worthy of commentary in that its use seems to be a way of warding off counterarguments: if I agree with conventional wisdom then I've not studied the Bible enough.# There exist Christians who do not use organs in church because they are not mentioned in Scripture; and they can use `be not conformed' on you just as easily.& ------ # - I don't know that Tom intended this, but that's how I read it. & - In the event Tom is a person opposed to organs in worship, I can come up with another example (maybe high technology like computers) -- there is almost nothing you can do that won't offend _somebody_. ------ Moving on to the actual argument from Scripture, Tom refers to the command `Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.' And while it is true that this instruction has never been retracted, it only says to `fill' the earth -- implying that we are supposed to stop increasing in number when we have done so. Given that there are *millions* of starving people _right now_, there are those who feel that we've already filled the earth; there are many people who feel that in an overzealous effort to carry out this command, we are actually breaking it by not knowing when to stop.% The obvious counterargument is that it is God who decides when to create a life, and if he didn't want any more he would sterilise everybody himself -- but this argument is seriously flawed as shown by the case of murder: while it is God who decides when to end a life, many people commit murder and God does not interfere. Since God often does not interfere with our free will, it is not obvious that he would interfere with our reproducing _even if_ it was not what he wanted. ------ % - Note that I am not claiming this is true OR false -- I am simply saying that there are people who accept this command and who disagree about the proper way to comply with it. ------ Tom's next argument went like this: > > It is said that for Adam "no suitable helper was found." No suitable >helper for what? Obviously, someone to help Adam carry out God's commands >regarding work, worship and procreation. Marriage and sex involve more >than meeting the need for companionship. If all Adam needed was a compan- >ion, any of the beasts would have been suitable. Dogs make wonderful com- >panions. But a dog could not help Adam be obedient to the command "be >fruitful and multiply." Which fails on several counts. Firstly, the command to `be fruitful and multiply' is only given to _both_ Adam & Eve -- there is no indication that Adam was ordered to do so alone, and therefore the lack of a suitable companion must hinge on other than this one command. (I can find no reference to a command to worship in the first two chapters of Genesis, and therefore do not consider that a relevant issue.) Secondly, there is a bit of guesswork in the `any beast would have been suitable': how do you know? Can you imagine living an entire lifetime without poetry or music, without sharing and laughter? I am fortunate to hang out with a fairly well-read canine, but he is hardly the perfect companion -- and without other people to write books, what would we have to read? (Indeed, without someone to invent tennis balls we can't even play fetch.) Tom then quotes Philip Hughes (with whom I am assuming Tom agrees), who wrote: > > The primary function served by the creation of the two sexes is the >_procreation_ (emph. orig.) of children and the propagation of the race. >The design of the sexual organs is obviously for this purpose, enabling >man to contribute and woman to receive the male sperm for the impregnation >of the ova in her womb, ... Erotic stimulation is meant to serve this end, >not to be an end in itself. Which ignores an import subset of Christianity: those couples who cannot have children. If, as Mr. Hughes implies, erotic stimulation has only one end, then in cases where it will not serve to to accomplish its supposed goal it ought not occur. However, sex between married partners who cannot have children can serve other ends than procreation, and denying that any other end is important seems to require that infertile couples abstain permanently. The same basic problem appears in another quote from Mr. Hughes: > > But sex without reproduction is subversion of the primary purpose of sex; >sex merely for the pleasure of the individual is the perversion of sex to >selfish and licentious ends which will soon pall in surfeit and disgust. Which more clearly sets up a false dichotomy between `sex for reproduction' and `sex merely for the pleasure of the individuals,' and not addressing, for example, `sex to strengthen the marriage relationship.' Once again, the result of such thinking is to deny that infertile couples should engage in sexual intimacy, a position I doubt anyone wishes to take. Do you accept this result of the argument? Or do you recognise that there are other acceptable reasons for couples to engage in sex? I should also note that I find this implicit claim that sex is acceptable only for purposes of reproduction at odds with 1 Corinthians 7:1-7. In verse 6 Paul says that his advice is a concession, and not a command; but the main thrust of the passage is that sex has benefits beyond children and that Paul considers these valid (or, at least, not invalid). On the role of women, Tom discusses the traditional model of family life. Without getting too involved in this particular topic, I do not know that these comments are necessarily relevant: even if I accept the traditional position on women vis-a-vis teaching in Church and staying at home, this does not speak directly to the issue of controlling a family's _size_, which is my perception of the actual matter at hand. (Had reliable contraception existed at the time, perhaps Paul would have given us his opinion -- but I think it is overly speculative to make an inference from the (relatively brief) comments he has left behind on the women & the family.) Tom also gives us an argument based on God's position of total provider, and cites Jesus' words from Matthew 6 about worry. I usually complain when those I see those, and today will be no exception. 8-) The problem I have with quoting the `do not worry' passage to argue against careful planning is that there are other passages of Scripture which should be considered and aren't. Proverbs 6:9-11 specifically address the `sluggard' who does not engage in the work he should apparently be doing, and that sort of admonition is at odds with the impression I am getting from Tom; he seems to be saying `do not worry' implies `do not take action', with which I disagree. (Later, Tom writes that `There may be times when the use of birth control is justified, such as when the health of the woman is in question or when the spacing of children would seem prudent,' which gives me the impression that I am missing some of the subtleties he intended. Would you care to add some light?) The most compelling portion of Tom's argument (IMHO) was the position that children are a blessing, and contraception is an attempt to refuse God's blessing (and is therefore a form of disobedience)*; but when asked > What other blessing that is offered to us do we respond to God by > saying, "Enough!"? I feel obliged to point out that good weather is a blessing from God, but there are many farmers who have irrigation systems for when there is not enough rain, and many who pay cloud seeders to _stop_ `good weather'.$ And there are many people in countries that have't had enough rain who are starving because they don't have such modern technology. ------ * - I do not necessarily agree with this interpretation, but if that is Tom's opinion then it can surely buttress the other arguments which I feel are weak. $ - It is true that some of these farmers are going out of business because the systems cost too much and the money to be made was not up to the government's expectations -- but there are other farmers who went out of business because they _didn't_ have the systems and the cloud seeding was unsuccessful. ------ Tom's article ended with some other (probably rhetorical) questions, which I am going to answer in the hopes that this will help us to understand each other [ in separating them out I shattered the context, so I've inserted what I interpreted them to mean in brackets -- Tom's original paragraph was clear and only needs the comments due to my breaking it up ] . > What biblical reasoning can be offered to support the notion that birth >control is a private matter? Well, there's Romans 14; especially verses 11 & 12. I cannot follow your rules if I think that they are wrong; I must act in faith and do the best that I know how. I may (and probably would) seek others' guidance in any matter about which there was controversy -- but the final decision must be my own. > Doesn't this [ leaving birth control a private matter ] strike at the >very heart of Christian faith and practice? Not in my opinion; I believe that the heart of Christian faith & practice is acting in love (something I hardly claim to be expert at) -- and I do not feel it is loving to make others' decisions for them. It is generally accepted that we are no longer under the OT Law, and I do not see that the church at large is qualified to establish new laws (except perhaps in the area of improving interpersonal relations -- which shouldn't be needed, but That's The Way It Goes). > Doesn't it [ contraception ] say to the world: we can trust God for >salvation (eternal) but I am in control of my own body (temporal). Not if the implication is "I cannot trust God to take care of my body" -- I think it says `God has given us abilities that we must use responsibly, and we are trying to do so.' kilroy@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy "It is dangerous to confuse children with angels." -- Sir David Maxwell Frye