Think I'll Skip the Party by Candice Watters on 04/28/2010 at 9:51 AM

50 years ago the FDA approved the sale of Enovid, what we now call The Pill. And "the world has never been the same since." So writes Albert Mohler in his look at Time magazine's cover story about this remarkable drug.

Mohler, who is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the Focus on the Family Board of Directors, looks at the Time story not only as a commenter, but as a contributor. It's author, Nancy Gibbs, included him in her interviews and in the section of the story called "Backlash."

In it he said, “I think the contraceptive revolution caught Evangelicals by surprise. We bought into a mentality of human control. We welcomed the polio vaccine and penicillin and just received the Pill as one more great medical advance.”

In his blog commentary about the story, he adds,

The idea that sex would be severed from childbearing is a very modern concept — and a concept made meaningful only by the development of the Pill and its successor birth control technologies. The severing of this relationship represents a quantum change in human life and relationships, not to mention morality.

Nancy Gibbs is fair and accurate in her use of my words and arguments. I do indeed believe that the development of the Pill “has done more to reorder human life than any event since Adam and Eve ate the apple.” Why? Because sex, sexuality, and reproduction are so central to human life, to marriage, and to the future of humanity.

The Pill turned pregnancy — and thus children — into elective choices, rather than natural gifts of the marital union. But then again, the marital union was itself weakened by the Pill, because the avoidance of pregnancy facilitated adultery and other forms of non-marital sex. In some hands, the Pill became a human pesticide.

His commentary begs a question: Now what?

To which he answers,

Christians must not join the contraceptive revolution as mere consumers of the Pill or other birth control methodologies. Finally, many evangelicals are joining the discussion about birth control and its meaning. Evangelicals arrived late to the issue of abortion, and we have arrived late to the issue of birth control, but we are here now.

Time magazine’s current cover story puts the issue of the Pill and birth control front and center in our cultural conversation. It should be an important part of our Christian conversation as well.

Think I'll Skip the Party by Candice Watters on 04/28/2010 at 9:51 AM

50 years ago the FDA approved the sale of Enovid, what we now call The Pill. And "the world has never been the same since." So writes Albert Mohler in his look at Time magazine's cover story about this remarkable drug.

Mohler, who is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and a member of the Focus on the Family Board of Directors, looks at the Time story not only as a commenter, but as a contributor. It's author, Nancy Gibbs, included him in her interviews and in the section of the story called "Backlash."

In it he said, “I think the contraceptive revolution caught Evangelicals by surprise. We bought into a mentality of human control. We welcomed the polio vaccine and penicillin and just received the Pill as one more great medical advance.”

In his blog commentary about the story, he adds,

The idea that sex would be severed from childbearing is a very modern concept — and a concept made meaningful only by the development of the Pill and its successor birth control technologies. The severing of this relationship represents a quantum change in human life and relationships, not to mention morality.

Nancy Gibbs is fair and accurate in her use of my words and arguments. I do indeed believe that the development of the Pill “has done more to reorder human life than any event since Adam and Eve ate the apple.” Why? Because sex, sexuality, and reproduction are so central to human life, to marriage, and to the future of humanity.

The Pill turned pregnancy — and thus children — into elective choices, rather than natural gifts of the marital union. But then again, the marital union was itself weakened by the Pill, because the avoidance of pregnancy facilitated adultery and other forms of non-marital sex. In some hands, the Pill became a human pesticide.

His commentary begs a question: Now what?

To which he answers,

Christians must not join the contraceptive revolution as mere consumers of the Pill or other birth control methodologies. Finally, many evangelicals are joining the discussion about birth control and its meaning. Evangelicals arrived late to the issue of abortion, and we have arrived late to the issue of birth control, but we are here now.

Time magazine’s current cover story puts the issue of the Pill and birth control front and center in our cultural conversation. It should be an important part of our Christian conversation as well.

Comments

[1. Ashley said the following at 10:14 AM on Apr 28:]

1

eeeeeeeeh.

I've had a lot of in-depth conversations with a lot of people on birth control, and it's one of those complicated issues where nobody really knows what side to come down on. But I think there are a lot of concerns that come with modern life that mean that we can't all live like the Duggars.

We aren't all carving a living out of the prarie with our bare hands anymore, so there's no need to have 15 kids, like in our grandparents' generation, so they can help tend the farm. It costs what, $1.5 M to raise one child in the west? While they may be the historical norm, big families are a hardship in today's society -- it's irresponsible to bring a child you can't reasonably care for into the world.

It really, seriously bothers me when people that can't be wise stewards with what they have have more kids because they're taking some kind of moral stand against birth control, but then turn around and stick out their hands for some kind of government assistance. It makes me get all 1 Timothy 5:8 up in here: But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

You want to take a moral stance against birth control? Great! You do what it takes to become a Doctor, or a Lawyer, or an Astrophysicist so you can provide for and your wife can stay home and take care of all the babies you're gonna be making.

[2. Jeremiah (from Denver) said the following at 10:21 AM on Apr 28:]

2

"...the marital union was itself weakened by the Pill, because the avoidance of pregnancy facilitated adultery and other forms of non-marital sex."

This is one of these statements where I have to cry foul! !!! Is there any evidence to support this other than anecdotal speculation on the part of Mohler? Sexual sin, adultery, fornication, and lust have been around since original sin...

The pill is far more ubiquitous in today's society, and there are probably less births per capita because of it. However, people are also living for much much much longer than in generations past.

That said, I believe that you would be hard pressed to say that this generation (that grew up with easy access to birth control) is engaged in any more or less fornication than during say during the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's. What about during the days of the early church where temple prostitution was a regular part of pagan religion? There was no pill back then … but amazingly people were still having plenty of sex outside of marriage.

[3. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:27 AM on Apr 28:]

3

My thoughts on The Pill:

The genie is out of the bottle so to speak, and there's little sense trying to put it back in. Even if Christians en masse stopped using it, I highly doubt it would reduce promiscuity or increase marriages.

What's also interesting is that the only major Christian denomination to still denounce The Pill, the Roman Catholic Church, has had almost zero impact on practicing Catholics in America. Ask how many Catholics who use The Pill despite direct instruction not to and it'll probably be quite high.

Also consider that there are other forms of contraceptives other than The Pill. The Pill was not allowed into Japan for almost 40 years (but interestingly enough Viagra was approved within months. Of course it wasn't because Japan tends towards a patriartic society). So condomns were used instead. People were still having sex there out of wedlock and married couples still not having children (thus resulting in their near-negative growth rate). So what now, we try and ban all condoms?

Really, the key "problem" are people's economic attitudes and attidues towards children in general. Raising children is expensive. Very expensive. How many people choose abortions because they "can't afford to keep the baby"? How many couples limit their children because "they can't afford to have more". I'm not here to start a battle over how many children married couples should have. That is between them an God. But I do believe that most people are not being honest with themselves for having less children rather than more. Part of the blame is because we are no longer live in an agrarian economy where having more hands made it beneficial. With an industrial economy you don't need as many bodies working.

But I don't believe that couples should just starting having "quiver fulls" of children just for the sake of doing so. Having too many children has its consequences too. Just look at China.

As for the argument that contraception avoids the "punishment" of having a child, again, it's a moot point in today's world. The focus should not be so much on The Pill itself as much it should be on our attitudes towards the value of children and ultimately, the value of human life. Making sure that the lives of the unborn are protected. Making sure that however many children couples have that they can provide a good future for them.

Those are just my thoughts.

[4. Josh said the following at 10:37 AM on Apr 28:]

4

Man- here comes a lot of discussion, I think.

Is Mohler, or you, advocating never using oral contraceptives? Mohler's website seems to lean in that direction. I couldn't tell if he draws a distinction between the methods (barrier v. OCs), or the goals (Sex within marriage without the "concern/burden/joy" of children.

I don't know if thats the direction you intend for these comments to go! If not, don't worry about publishing this comment.

On a note more inline with this post- man, after 50 years, the world sure has changed, in response to the Pill.

[5. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 10:52 AM on Apr 28:]

5

To answer the question "Now what?":

Well, for Evangelicals isn't it obvious? A return to traditional Christian teaching (admitted by all Protestants prior to the 20th century) on the intrinsic immorality of the practice of contraception (so-called 'birth control') is the only choice and way forward.

However, this necessity is only partially recognized by the writer by his lament that "Christians must not join the contraceptive revolution as mere consumers of the Pill or other birth control methodologies."

What is it they say about horses and barn doors?

[6. Bri said the following at 10:55 AM on Apr 28:]

6

Thanks Candice, that's really interesting. And timely! My fiance and I are just in the middle of discussing birth control and the different forms of contraceptives. After much thought and prayer, he's come to a place where he would like to use the Pill... but I'm not quite there yet. On one hand, I find the security the Pill provides immensely appealing. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of changing my body in such an unnatural way and I can't help but think about whether or not we would be preventing potential children that we would love and cherish from being born into our family.
I've found John MacArthur's resources really helpful as I'm praying through this issue. His book Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong has a sections devoted to this topic, there's an excerpt here: http://www.gtycanada.org/Resources/Questions/QA114_What-does-the-Bible-teach-about-birth-control

I'd love to see what other readers are thinking!

[7. Vanessatheblessah said the following at 11:22 AM on Apr 28:]

7

Skipping the party with you.

[8. jen said the following at 11:25 AM on Apr 28:]

8

It's important to note that the pill isn't just used for contraception. Some women take it for medical conditions, i.e. polycystic ovary syndrome.

[9. Leigh said the following at 11:26 AM on Apr 28:]

9

Ummm.......

I'm not really sure what to think or where I stand on this issue. I've never really thought about it this way. I see where you are coming from and I get it. Large familys were common "back then" before the pill, should we go back to that? My Grandfather was one of 12, birth years aging from 1911 - 1927. Are christians REALLY ready to give up their chance for the empty nest? Spend their golden years raising teenagers? I doubt most christians will go this far, so you can forget about the world. They are going to laugh this one up. I know a family who believes this way and, well, I will spare you the details of what her insides ending up being like after 7 kids. I may be selfish, but I don't want make babies to the point where my insides are fallingout. My great grandmother had a 6 year old at the same time she had a 30 year old. NObody can afford day care for that many kids. Womens rights people will run with this one too. Stay home be a baby machine and raise kids? Thats the only thing you could do if you had an un controled number of kids. OR you could just NOT have sex unless you wanted a baby. Even Christians guys wont go for that. I admit we control FAR to much, and we like to play God. But honestly... I don't want to be pregnant every other year when Im married. Also, if you pick on birth control, you have to pick on the tubes being tied ect. I think I agree.. I just don't want to do it personaly. I know thats wrong, just being honest.

[10. Joy said the following at 12:03 PM on Apr 28:]

10

I still don't see separating sex from childbearing as being anything like separating sex from marriage. People were having adultery and fornicating long before birth control and I don't really think birth control in and of itself is responsible for an increase in these behaviors. Yes birth control did come into existence at the same time as the sexual revolution and it was/is used wrongly by fornicators and adulterers, but I don't think that should stop married Christians from using it. Also, as sad and wrong as it is for people to be out there fornicating and committing adultery I think I would rather them use a form of birth control that prevents fertilization in the first place then for them to be having abortions.

[11. JB said the following at 12:30 PM on Apr 28:]

11

Is there any evidence that the availability of chemical contraception caused increased marital infidelity? It seems that this would be a very difficult assertion to support.

[12. Julie said the following at 12:43 PM on Apr 28:]

12

Well, I could see from that article someone posted on contraception how it has had its downsides as far as the marriage market.

On the other hand, realistically, we live in a society where we do not need kids to help with the farm, we need to raise them up to function in a knowledge economy, and we need to fund our own retirements and not expect our kids to do so. For most people, accomplishing all of the above will mean limiting the number of children at some point.

[13. Ultraviolet said the following at 12:49 PM on Apr 28:]

13

I don't know if this is too personal of a question, but I'm curious about this. Since Boundless writers are against the pill...do you use any form of contraception? Are you planning on having a large family? Maybe this is an intrusive question, but I think it's relevant, because instead of just banning the pill, you need to provide us with real alternatives, and so I guess what you're really saying is that everyone pretty much has to have a large family. Is that correct? Is withdrawal okay? I know Motte has around four biological kids, as well as four adopted children, but no one else seems to talk about having a large family so I'm just trying to figure out what you do, if anything (since I would assume that if you're not using contraception as so many articles advocate, you all would be having a ton of kids).

[14. Jacob said the following at 1:02 PM on Apr 28:]

14

It amazes me that when a couple starts talking about marriage one of the first conversations seems to be about what kind of birth control will be used. This world has been so brain washed that birth control is necessary for marriage. Sexual intercourse is not the only pleasure to be had in marriage. If a couple wants to delay having children then explore the wonders of God's design for marriage.
Even many of my Christian friends have the mindset of birth control is a must. To get married and not use it seems unusual to them.
As a single young man I would like to find a young woman that shares a more traditional view about God's design for marriage.

[15. Will said the following at 1:11 PM on Apr 28:]

15

This is one of those issues where I feel like even if The Pill had never been invented, people's hearts would STILL be as lustful and wicked.

So what if fear of personal consequences (unwanted childbirth) prevents one from unfettered fornication?

Unless one's motivation for avoiding premarital intimacy is a desire to please God, it really doesn't matter if you do it or not...ya still have a wicked and adulterous heart, and THAT is the true problem, not spiraling teen pregnancy rates.

[16. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:17 PM on Apr 28:]

16

Whoa...I didn't realize that sex makes babies!

[17. Melissa said the following at 1:25 PM on Apr 28:]

17

The issue of birth control has been on my mind a lot lately. I have been married almost two years now and am the proud mother of a honeymoon baby that I wouldn't trade for all the money in the world. My husband and I have been practicing Natural Family Planing (periodic abstinence) to avoid having another child too soon. Then last month we both felt 'ready' for another ... but didn't conceive. I felt so foolish for preventing God's blessings earlier and now that I'm 'ready,' I can't 'make' it happen.

"Birth control" really is a misleading term. We can only control the not-conceiving end of things. I have heard (scary!) stories of people who try for years to conceive a child and have all these procedures done... and are still childless. The fact is that we aren't in control. Unfortunately, someone who's been on the pill for years has the illusion that the moment they go off of it, a baby will come along.

I'm glad that God taught me this lesson now at 27 and not when I'm even older. How could I be so bold as to shun God's blessing and then want it now? Aside from the baby-making aspect, birth control does affect a marriage. When you're trying to get pregnant or trying non to get pregnant, the mystery and beauty of sex is harder to find.

I've learned a lot of humility lately. Children are a blessing. The Bible says so. It also advises the young women to "marry and bear children" and I think parenthood is often the common vehicle that He uses to sanctify us. Many people limit or prevent childbirth in their marriages in order to facilitate selfish lifestyles. I want to be open to God's blessings, but not anxious trying to make it happen either.

[18. Ted Slater said the following at 1:26 PM on Apr 28:]

18

Ashley (#1) -- you warned about the financial burden of children by saying it costs "$1.5 M to raise one child in the west."

Come on, Ashley. You left a comment, which tells me that you've got internet access. How hard is it to do a google search before stating some factoid as though it's true?

OK, I did your research for you, and it looks like the average child costs closer to $150,000 to raise from birth to adulthood. And that factors in "child care" -- an expense a lot of people (including my wife and I) don't pay. And "housing," which is kind of weird, since most children live at home with their parents.

In truth, for most families, it doesn't cost a whole lot to raise children. And no, "big families are a hardship in today's society." I know a lot of people with modest incomes and large families, and they are the opposite of a "hardship" on society.

[19. Irish Dude said the following at 1:30 PM on Apr 28:]

19

I agree with #3. Mike Theemling...

Can the blog writers here answer honestly that they didn't have vasectomy's or tubal ligations after they were "done" having children after not using the Pill or some other form of contraceptive? If so, why? Doesn't that counter the entire idea that not using the Pill was promoted in this article? If you are going to go au naturale in a Christian marriage then logic dictates you will end up like the Duggars with 10+ children and having children potentially well into your 40's. How many of you women here plan on having kids through your 40's? The fact that 99% (I made that number up, but you get the idea) of Christian families do not have 10+ children indicates to me that they either participated in some form of contraception until they were "ready to have kids" or they went au naturale until they had their 2, 3, or 4+ kids and then had surgery to make sure they couldn't have any more.

What logical difference in doing it au naturale via the way God made our bodies is there with a pill blocking the brains signal to ovulate vs getting your tubes tied? Why is one promoted but the other discouraged?

[20. Jeremiah (from Denver) said the following at 1:39 PM on Apr 28:]

20

Other people are certainly entitled to their views, and I do think there are good reasons to support Christian couples having children… However, I see very little biblical evidence that God created sex ONLY for the purpose of procreation. I seem to recall reading that humans are the only mammals that have sex regardless of fertility; in all other species, sex only occurs when the female is ovulating. If God made us to enjoy sex just for sex, He did so to His glory.

The verses about the man becoming one with his wife in flesh, and the fact that the man’s body belongs to the woman and vice versa indicate (to me) that part of the marital commitment is satisfying physical needs for both the man and wife. Babies may in fact be the natural outcome for unprotected sex on a regular basis, but that fact, in and of itself, does not provide sufficient evidence that birth control is wrong in any way.

Just so that Christian women do not get the wrong idea about how Christian men think... But I am the polar opposite of Jacob (#14). I can’t say it’s a deal breaker, but I would be very reluctant to date a woman that doesn’t believe in birth control of some sort… And yes, I do want to have kids. I just have no desire to have my “brood of offspring” dominate the entire world… ;)

[21. Jacob said the following at 1:39 PM on Apr 28:]

21

To answer Ultraviolet:

I believe practicing other ways of contraception are a better alternative. The pill alters natural processes in a woman's body and that is going too far. I believe it is like tatooing or piercings. Scripture commands us not do so.
As far as condoms and barrier methods. Go for it. But I believe there are greater enjoyments to be had than strictly intercourse. Will not go into details on here. But God made more of the body to have pleasure than just those parts. We as a culture have become too obsessed about just intercourse.
Ultimately I think the pill removes some of the preciousness out of sex between married couples. It becomes a gift that we get bored with rather than treasure.

[22. Phoebe said the following at 1:41 PM on Apr 28:]

22

Leigh says "Are christians REALLY ready to give up their chance for the empty nest? Spend their golden years raising teenagers? I doubt most christians will go this far, so you can forget about the world. They are going to laugh this one up. I know a family who believes this way and, well, I will spare you the details of what her insides ending up being like after 7 kids. I may be selfish, but I don't want make babies to the point where my insides are fallingout. My great grandmother had a 6 year old at the same time she had a 30 year old. NObody can afford day care for that many kids. Womens rights people will run with this one too. Stay home be a baby machine and raise kids? Thats the only thing you could do if you had an un controled number of kids."

Hmmm. I am the oldest of seven. My mom is strong and healthy, in comparable health with the other ladies her age. (There may be people who need to limit family size for health reasons, but she was able to do it.) She takes delight in staying home and raising kids. My dad works for UPS, supporting us faithfully. It's not an enormous income, but enough for us. I don't think it takes millions to raise kids -- we know we'll have to put ourselves through college, and so far God has provided. Mama enjoys her teenagers and has raised them to be enjoyable young adults, and as a result does not fear the idea of being 60 when my youngest brother is 15. She is hoping that by the time "empty nest" comes, she'll have grandchildren.

The link between marriage, sex and procreation was created by God. We need to take this link very seriously as part of his purpose for the world, and as part of his purpose for our lives.

[23. Ashley said the following at 2:26 PM on Apr 28:]

23

Seriously, Ted? You're calling me out for not researching a statement that I put a question mark behind on a post on a blog? I very clearly was stating it as an assumption and not a factiod. :P Just because you disagree with me is no reason to jump all over me like I commited the unpardonable sin of the internetz. I had a moment of innaccurate recall; I didn't realize that appropriate links to scholarly articles were a prerequisite! You could have posted your rebuttal without getting snippy.

I was off by an order of magnitude - but I still think your number is a little low. Reuters said $291,570 per child in 2008 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57367220090804). Nevertheless, Raising a child is still expensive. Over 6 kids and even using your low number you're hitting over the million dollar mark -- Your definition of "A Whole Lot" and mine must be pretty different!

The crux of my argument remains: Having a large family, today, in the United States is burdensome for the PARENTS of the family (not society as a whole - except in those situations where they are having children as an excuse to get another welfare check). Sure, those parents might be happy as all get out, they might be thrilled to have seven+ kids... but it's still going to make their life/marriage/retirement harder than if they had one or two children. They've got to buy a bigger vehicle that gets worse gas mileage because they can't fit the kids in a minivan. They have to buy bigger homes, and more food on hand than families that only have a couple of kids. They have to budget more stringently. And there's the time thing: they don't have the time to attend all of Jimmy's soccer games because Suzy's got ballet practice. Dad has to work longer hours to make ends meet, and Mom can't be attentive to each child like she would be with a smaller bunch.

Did earlier generations make it work? Yeah! They Did! Earlier generations also didn't have to deal with a workforce where higher education is essentially mandatory, where kids are at risk for all kinds of mischeif and evil from the time they hit kindergarden, where even the best neighborhoods are still rediculous unsafe. Earlier generations also NEEDED the extra hands to help take care of the farm, to help make clothes and cook for the family and to do a lot of the menial tasks that modern convenience has eliminated.

The short version is: In today's world having a big family is HARD WORK. It's fine for people who want to live that way (Obviously, as I mentioned, the Duggars make it work) -- and assuming that they have the kind of affluent lifestyle that makes it possible for them, I say more power to them!

The emphasis here is, it's straight up bad stewardship to have kids you can't care for in excellence. The pill might have made it easier, but contraception is nothing new, and I would a million times rather that people only attempt to have babies they want to love and nurture than abort or abandon those that they don't.

My numbers may be faulty, but the logic is not.

[24. Danielle said the following at 2:28 PM on Apr 28:]

24

I just hate the stigma that comes with taking the Pill. I am not sexually active (in fact, I'm a virgin) and I take the Pill to avoid menstruating, which can take me out of commission for about 3 days because of severe cramps. I just can't function like that with work and school, so I take the Pill for that reason.

On the topic of preventing pregnancy, I agree with some of the other posters: the fact is that some people just can't afford a family like the Duggars.

[25. EKB said the following at 2:30 PM on Apr 28:]

25

I am really glad to see Evangelicals stepping back and questioning the morality of our contraceptive culture. I also think some posters here, such as Jeremiah (from Denver), are setting up false dichotomies about the issue. It is absolutely false that those of us against contraception think that sex is ONLY for procreation. We believe it must be both unitive and procreative, which of course includes pleasure and emotional intimacy.

Also, some Christians such as Catholics make distinctions between natural forms of birth control that space children out and contraception. Almost no one is advocating that Christians must have as many children as is physically possible.

Non-contracepting forms of family planning can have huge benefits. For instance, studies have shown that Catholics who use natural family planning (a Church-approved method to space kids) have a divorce rate of under 1% (and actually have more sex than couples using contraception). Obviously that's a self-selecting group, but that's huge in a culture where Christian divorce rates are usually no different from our secular counterparts. See the details yourself: http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=193

I linked to this article a few days ago, but I can't help but to provide it again because it is so relevant to the discussion. Boundless readers in particular will be interested to see how contraception has led to the devaluing of women and children, and makes marriages weaker.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/bitter-pill

[26. Jayme said the following at 2:42 PM on Apr 28:]

26

It's an issues that we (my fiance) and I discussed soon after we got engaged. Pre-engagement, we'd already had discussed whether we wanted children (yes), how many, general philosophy on birth (conception) control. So, we get engaged and it's time to discuss how to make our thoughts actual.

We're going to use Natural Family Planning - with some tweaking.
Both of us were against The Pill for abortificant reasons.
We're both older (30 and 34), so the strong desire to not have children isn't really there. We'd like to postpone conception for a year or so, if we can.
So, I'm charting stuff now to determine fertility windows so we know when to either 1) abstain, 2) use a barrier method or 3) do something creative.

NFP (the actual cirrculum) would tell you that your only option is to abstain when you'd consider yourself fertile. No other option but to abstain. We don't agree with that, but are using the education that NFP provides as knowing when conception is likely or possible to handle.

To be honest, for a while, I considered not having children. I'm already older (31 when we get married) and the odds of being able to have as many children as I'd want (4 or more please!) don't seem very likely without taxing my body. So, it seemed easier to not have kids. I realized that I was being selfish.

Being selfish seems (to me) to be the reason that The Pill was brought about...so people could say no to children. Say no now or forever.

My thoughts.

[27. Mark W said the following at 2:43 PM on Apr 28:]

27

I'm sorry, but I think there are too many logical fallacies in the argument against birth control.

For starters, the idea that using contraception gives you, in any way, the ability to "play God." To approximately quote Mark Driscoll, it's not like God is up in heaven going "Oh crap, latex! What am I gonna do now?" If God wants you to get pregnant, you will; contraception notwithstanding. As finite humans we do what we can to order biological realities to our desires. There are some areas where this is good (medical care that makes it possible for people with severe heart conditions to remain alive), bad (abortion), and ambiguous (birth control). But you cannot say that any attempt to resist/correct/redirect/etc. the "natural order" of things by "artificial means" is necessarily sinful or an attempt at playing God. Follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion, and all medical procedures/care - in fact possibly all human action period - is an attempt at playing God. That is quite obviously absurd. You simply cannot say that birth control is trying to "play God" in some profoundly different way than say, reviving a person who has had a cardiac arrest. In all cases, God's sovereignty still overrules any of our feeble efforts; and the primary issue is not whether or not we are "interfering with God's plan" (we can't), but why are we taking this action and to what end.

Second, even if you accept the (IMHO ill-conceived) proposition that attempting to limit family size is trying to "play God" or sinfully refusing God's good gifts, than that necessarily rules out ANY form of contraception. If kids being a gift = you need to have as many as God wants to give you, then you better have sex all the time and not do anything that would in any way prevent having kids. And if you take the official Roman Catholic position (first stated by Augustine) that the primary and only legitimate purpose for sex is procreation, then you better not have sex AT ALL unless you're trying to get pregnant; as in that case, even natural planning is a sinful subversion/perversion of the "true" purpose of sex. Abstinence would be the only acceptable form of birth control, and women also can't have sex after menopause. Sterile/infertile people should never have sex either.

Third, it is absurdly anachronistic to say that the Church as a whole was against contraception prior to the 20th century. The only forms of contraception that existed prior to the 20th century were natural planning and generally ineffective and/or potentially dangerous barrier methods. That's about as relevant and makes about as much sense as saying that the church was against film prior to the 20th century.

Fourth, as others have said, if you're going to say that the pill has been responsible for increased fornication and adultery, please back that up. Even if that's true, does that make the pill inherently wrong and/or mean it can't be used for redeeming purposes? (Is it guns that are responsible for killing people?)

Fifth, to deny the economic realities of the time we live in is also absurdly anachronistic. In agrarian societies, more kids = more workers = more prosperity. In an industrialized society, more kids = more dependents (wonderful dependents that are gifts, but dependent nonetheless) = greater strain on family resources. Can people live with large families on modest (by industrialized Western standards) incomes? Yes. Does that mean that this is everyone's calling? If you're going to say yes to that, you better have good reasons to back it up. I'm not aware of any that can be applied en masse to the Church. (Also, who decides how big is big enough? If you say God, then you better not criticize a couple that has less than 3 kids as that could be what God desires for them.)

Finally, just because something is a gift doesn't mean that you MUST HAVE as much of it as you possibly can. Meaningful work is a gift. Time with family is a gift. The ability to study scripture is a gift. Financial prosperity is a gift. Food is a gift. Time with other believers is a gift. And on and on and on we could go. Sometimes we need to forego certain gifts in order to experience more of others. No one is exempt from making those kinds of choices in their lives. And no one has as much of any particular gift as they possibly could. Everyone needs to try to find a balance in their life.

I have a ton of respect for Dr. Mohler. I believe he's one of the most brilliant scholars currently living and the Church is fortunate to have him as a leader. I agree with 98% of his theology. But this is part of the 2% where I must strongly disagree. I simply cannot find a logically consistent Scriptural basis for categorically opposing birth control, or a particular form of it. I strongly believe that this is a conscience issue, and we commit the sin of religion/Pharisee-ism when we try to force our extra-Biblical conscience on others.

[28. Candice Watters said the following at 2:52 PM on Apr 28:]

28

Jeremiah wrote,

"That said, I believe that you would be hard pressed to say that this generation (that grew up with easy access to birth control) is engaged in any more or less fornication than during say during the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's."

Jeremiah, the pill was introduced in 1960. That's the point.

Josh, Dr. Mohler's post about oral contraceptives usage is here: http://www.albertmohler.com/2006/05/08/can-christians-use-birth-control/

Bri, congratulations on your upcoming marriage and thanks for dropping by! I wrote an article a while back about birth control and specifically, the Pill. It was in response to a young bride's questions. You can read it here: A Serious Question of Control

[29. Candice Watters said the following at 2:59 PM on Apr 28:]

29

Ultraviolet: Awesome question!

Michelle: Amazing comment!! You capture so beautifully the heart of the matter.

In answer to all of you wondering how the Boundless Team does or doesn't contracept, I can only speak for Steve and me, but am glad to do so. (We did so in even more detail in our book Start Your Family: Inspiration for Having Babies.)

We've practiced Natural Family Planning (NFP) from the start of our marriage (occasionally incorporating a barrier method during the months immediately after giving birth) and have so appreciated the way it relies on both husband and wife's involvement. NFP carries a host of benefits including fertility awareness and that's a big plus when you decide to start trying to get pregnant.

Interestingly, with 13 years of NFP as our primary, and most-of-the time exclusive form of "birth control," we have four children. Not 10. And certainly not 18. It's presumptuous of us to think that if we acknowledge that God opens and closes the womb that we know what He'll do. I was shocked to realize at age 33 that I was encountering secondary infertility. That's the age I would have thought we'd start trying to have babies. If an older couple hadn't challenged our plans, we may have been limited to 2 babies. What a tragedy that would have been!

I'm also in premature ovarian failure--early menopause--at age 39. I'd love to have another baby and hope God will work another miracle. I trust Him.

And that's really the point. Where will you put your trust?

[30. dans said the following at 3:01 PM on Apr 28:]

30

Dr. Mohler is, of course, completely wrong, on at least one point. His statement that "[t]he idea that sex would be severed from childbearing is a very modern concept — and a concept made meaningful only by the development of the Pill and its successor birth control technologies" is mind-bogglingly incorrect. While Wikipedia is not end-all be-all, in this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control is enough to prove my point. So that's one down.

That the Pill resulted in a lot more pre-marital (and during-marital, and post-marital) sex is undeniable. And, certainly, one can make a strong case for the Pill being a major contributor to ever-later marriages in western cultures. However, it is by no means the only contributor, and, frankly, were the Pill never developed the only real result would be a lot more sales for the condom manufacturers. Speaking from personal experience my last girlfriend did not use the Pill, the current one does. The only difference in our sexual behavior was that instead of having 100% safe sex with my current girlfriend, I had marginally less safe sex with my ex.

[31. Mickey said the following at 3:02 PM on Apr 28:]

31

Wow...thank God for Jacob (#14). All I see and hear here is me, myself and I.....what about what God wants?

If I use birth control when I get married, I pray that I will be honest enough to tell anyone who asks, that I am doing because I haven't yet reached the place where I can trust God with giving me and my husband the right number of children at the right time.

Most of us would rather live in denial than admit that.

I know of SEVERAL Christian couples who use no contraception and leave their family in God's hands and they have only 4 children.

Did not God make our bodies????? Can He not control our conception?

Are we willing to live the life God wants or do we value the fabulous life we'd prefer to live instead?

Isn't there a great benefit to raising godly offspring for God?

I wish we would be more honest with ourselves.

I, for one, pray that I will have the courage to have the family that God wants me to have....and that I would be blessed with a husband of like mind.

[32. IWishToRemainAnonymous said the following at 3:12 PM on Apr 28:]

32

Like some other posters here have mentioned, I too take oral contraceptives to treat the menstrual problems that literally governed my life when I was a teenager. No one in the real world gets a week off every month to suffer through their cycle; I did what I had to do to get through college and to work.

I am getting married soon and my fiance and I are now working out how we will use this once we get married. Basically I can't go off it until we really are ready to try to conceive - maybe in a year or so - and I don't really see the point in playing "let's pretend NFP" during that time.

I get kind of tired of hearing the same old arguments against oral contraceptives. The pill has not made me promiscuous or arrogant toward God, unless you consider taking medicine to alter the way my body works so that it works the way it's supposed to arrogance. Fallen world, folks. Bodies aren't perfect.

[33. Julie said the following at 3:19 PM on Apr 28:]

33

I agree with the person who said that if you're against birth control, you have to take that logic all the way. You have to be prepared to conceive on your wedding night, and you have to be be prepared to have as many babies that come until your fertility ends--this could mean a surprise baby in your mid-forties. For some people, they will take it this far. But for those who wouldn't, it's unfair to judge those of us who stop with 1, 2, or 3 kids, and who manage this through using birth control.

[34. Valerie said the following at 3:19 PM on Apr 28:]

34

I'm definitely at the party, celebrating. I'm on "the pill" and I'm a virgin.
As my (Christian) gynecologist said the birth control pill was misnamed, its hormonal control. And if I didn't take it for a medical condition (endometriosis) I could lose the ability to have children someday.

I wish people would educate themselves about this subject because the judgment from Christians hurts, especially when they don't know the facts.

[35. lola said the following at 3:20 PM on Apr 28:]

35

There are many "methods" available, the pill,IUD's, barrier methods, natural family planning...etc. I believe that the decision to use a method and which one should be between a husband, wife, and God. The only thing that I would advise is that couples should do their research about each method, so that they are fully informed, for example: some pills actually prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg and natural family planning may not work for someone with gynecologic problems (such as PCOS).
Oh and there is NO foolproof method other than abstinence...I have 3 women friends who had their tubes tied AND were on the pill who became pregnant (and in one case the husband had a vasectomy as well)...as my parents have always told me, "when you get married, no matter what you do, the chances of having babies goes waaay up"

[36. Julia H said the following at 3:21 PM on Apr 28:]

36

The Pill is a wonderful invention that has saved many women from unwanted pregnancies. I believe it has strengthened marriages by allowing couples to make love without worrying about having their 18th child. In addition, the Pill is a good regulator of hormones that has helped some women to conceive. It is also invaluable to women who suffer from endometriosis and who would be incapacitated by severe monthly bleeding and pain without it.

Like guns, the Pill isn't the problem, its the people who abuse it.

[37. Catherine said the following at 3:24 PM on Apr 28:]

37

While I understand Mohler's argument- I have changed my mind on this this year. I was very interested in natural family planning and decided to finally stop using the pill after quite a few years on it. that's when i discovered that i, like many women out there (and more and more every day due to obesity and eating disorders) have very irregular cycles (mine is due to polycystic ovarian syndrome- and no, i am not overweight- which affects about 6% of US women). NFP is VERY difficult if you have unpredictable cycles and can make your "safe" periods for marital intimacy extremely hard to predict. does that mean 1 in 10 couples should have to live with either quite a few more children than they would otherwise have or severely reduced intimacy in marriage?

the pill not only regulates your cycle in PCOS, but actually makes conception much more likely when you quit using it (due to better horomonal regulation). it also doesn't have the awkwardness of other methods of birth control. lets not forget that OCPs have many MANY uses outside of controlling reproduction. they are the first line treatment for menstrual irregularities, excessive bleeding (which can seriously harm a woman's health), severe premenstrual dysmorphic disorder, endometriosis and significantly reduce a woman's lifetime chances of having ovarian and endometrial cancer. don't throw the baby out with the bathwater :)

[38. Catherine said the following at 3:34 PM on Apr 28:]

38

I am sort of saddened by the total lack of knowledge in these comments about natural family planning though.. yes, you can control the number of children you have without contraception! it is, of course, much easier if you cycle regularly. I give to many friends- Christian and non-Christian- who are trying to conceive (but its great information on how to avoid conception also):

Taking Charge of Your Fertility by Toni Weschler

[39. Joel V said the following at 3:50 PM on Apr 28:]

39

I think Ashley (#1, 23) makes a good point about how hard and expensive it is to raise children in our day and age.

It is hard to have kids and maintain the affluent lifestyle that is the goal for most North Americans. Our standard of living just cannot support large families. Can you imagine not being able to afford a cottage or a house with a pool or a big screen TV?

I really believe that one of the underlying motivators for small families and therefore birth control is the lust of the flesh. Entertainment, pleasure and comfort is our god.

I have not come to a conclusion in my own mind to make a moral statement on contraception, but it is something I am convicted is at least wrong in most of our motives.

[40. Matthew said the following at 3:50 PM on Apr 28:]

40

Having read only the 1st few comments, (and planning to read the rest).. so yes children are a blessing and that is wonderful, yet what if you are consciously attempting to stop potential genetic disorders and choosing not to procreate? Say as example mental health and alcoholism issues are in your parents genetic line, and their parents and so on... and you find yourself showing signs...where does one stop the curse? Should we be mindful of this or ignore it? Should we then further the suffering of such an incredible choice to not have children and choose to be alone in the world and without companionship, love and partnership because intimacy's purpose is to procreate?

[41. Hannah C. O. said the following at 3:51 PM on Apr 28:]

41

I never believe the figures on how much it costs to raise a child. Part of this is my personal experience. (I come from a large family which was often poor.) Part of this is knowing that such figures are based on a standard of living which is not necessary or even necessarily *good.* Kids don't need high tech electronic gadgets or brand new clothes and not everyone needs their own room, for example. Nor does junk food need to be provided at will.

One of these days I may just have to do my own calculations on that..when I don't have life hounding me.

My husband is a waiter and I am a college student. If we were to get pregnant right now he could support us on what he makes, easily, without government aid. (Now we might have some trouble paying for prenatal care and delivery, but that's another story.) Granted he works in a business area, so the restaurant gets lots of business from the more affluent..but still. It isn't a super fancy restaurant or anything.

The one thing that really surprises and bugs me about popular opinion on having children is the selfishness I see in it. Adults get to decide when to have children or when not to, based on what is good for them. This is the view I see most often..and I believe it is fatally flawed. We are not in control of children. God is. We cannot conceive on demand any more than we can keep from conceiving on birth control. God is sovereign. In the end HE is the one in control of all of it, NOT us.

[42. Kay said the following at 3:56 PM on Apr 28:]

42

From my perspective, which is admittedly pretty unique, it is kind of disheartening to hear so much pill-bashing from fellow believers. I fought for many years AGAINST taking the pill, but finally caved because it seemed to be medically the only option left to explore for my severe dysmenorrhea and PMDD symptoms. For this reason, having a baby is somewhat more complicated for me and my husband. And that in itself is especially difficult for me, as I have desperately wanted to be a mother pretty much all my life. It's in God's hands, though!

To quote Jacob, #21: "The pill alters natural processes in a woman's body and that is going too far. I believe it is like tatooing or piercings. Scripture commands us not do so."

Actually, the so-called "natural" processes in MY body are pretty UNnatural, thus my need to take the pill to manage my symptoms. I'd like to see your Scriptural argument against that. But then again, I guess I'm just a godless heathen, what with my pierced ears and all! ;)

[43. Ted Slater said the following at 4:05 PM on Apr 28:]

43

Um. I don't think anyone at Boundless or Focus on the Family is against birth control outright. And to my knowledge we've never said that its use has us "playing God."

We're simply pointing out that its prevalence has affected our thoughts on conception and children in profound ways. And maybe we'd benefit by pondering what those effects on our thinking might be.

I think it's safe to say that most of us here agree with John Piper, who has written:

The Bible nowhere forbids birth control, either explicitly or implicitly, and we should not add universal rules that are not in Scripture.... What is important is our attitude in using it. Any attitude which fails to see that children are a good gift from the Lord is wrong.

So maybe stop characterizing Boundless as being adamantly against birth control options such as The Pill, NFP, barriers, or spermicides. There are deeper issues to explore here.

[44. Julia H said the following at 4:16 PM on Apr 28:]

44

According to the scriptures, NFP may actually be sinful.

"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1 Cor. 7: 3-5).

I would rather use birth control (that is not addressed in Scripture) than sinfully deprive my husband to limit the size of my family.

[45. Mark W said the following at 4:20 PM on Apr 28:]

45

I intimated this in my previous comment, but I want to reiterate it a bit more bluntly this time. I do not understand how people such as Candice (#29) and Mickey (#31) can imply that people only use the pill because they distrust God. And yet both of you seem to be totally OK w/ NFP. Tell me, what makes NFP superior to the pill? Whether you like it or not, both are attempts to control (or "plan" if you prefer) the number of children one has. In either case, GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL. I understand the arguments about not doing something artificial to your body, but please tell me how someone has more trust in God if they try to control their number of children through not having sex when fertile as opposed to taking a pill. In either case, YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO CONTROL HOW MANY CHILDREN YOU HAVE. One does not have more or less faith because they prefer a particular method of contraception. To imply so reeks of spiritual superiority and judgementalism.

Also, since you linked to Dr. Mohler, here's a link to Desiring God.

[46. Jo said the following at 4:26 PM on Apr 28:]

46

Mark W, 28, great comment.

I really think birth control (in general) is a personal matter between a couple and God. No room for judgment or condemnation on either side. There are all kinds of reasons why a couple might want to try and limit the size of their family or avoid conceiving altogether. I personally think birth control is completely acceptable as long as it is used with an attitude of, "We are not all-knowing and we are not ultimately in control, so if God decides to override our human wisdom and give us a child, we will accept His will and consider it a gift".

This is a difficult issue for me, because my health issues *may* mean that avoiding pregnancy could end up being the safest option (if pregnancy would be dangerous) and the least selfish option (if I wasn't well enough to care properly for a child). I *really* want to be a mother so I *really* hope this will not be my fate. If it is, then barring divine guidance in another direction, I will follow medical advice to try and prevent pregnancy, and at the same time I will pray for God to overrule, work a miracle and bless me with a baby. If those two things sound contradictory, be glad you don't have to live in the grey areas like this one.

As for the pill specifically, I think its possible/arguable abortive function is worth discussing from a Christian point of view. But that's a separate issue from many of those raised here, which apply to all methods of birth control equally - even in most cases NFP, as Mark W pointed out.

[47. young adult said the following at 4:30 PM on Apr 28:]

47

My parents never used birth control, and they only had two kids. They were married for four years before I was born, then for another four years before my only sibling came along.

[48. Annika said the following at 4:34 PM on Apr 28:]

48

So, what I seem to be hearing from the anti-pill people is that the pill is bad, but barrier methods and NFP are OK? Where did God say that?

I'm engaged, I'm on the pill for medical reasons, as other posters have mentioned, and I have every intention of staying on it for 3-5 years until we plan to have children. I'm 22, have a master's degree and I'm working on my PhD, and my fiance is in seminary, and we don't want kids 'til we're both out of school. I don't see how NFP or condoms would be "more God-ordained" than taking the pill those 5 years!

And yes, the pill (and condoms, which have been around for a REALLY long time) enable sex outside of marriage without children. It's a fallen world, and people are evil. The pill is not.

[49. Nicole said the following at 4:59 PM on Apr 28:]

49

whoa there! While I don't entirely disagree, This seems be pretty harsh. Birth control can be used responsibly, there are other practical uses for it besides preventing pregnancy. Also not everyone feels the same about abortion or shares the same morality and frankly I would rather see a woman prevent a baby than destroy one.

[50. Bridget said the following at 5:38 PM on Apr 28:]

50

I volunteer! I would love to have a super large family!

Now if I could only find a husband...

Seriously, folks, even here on a Christian site our attitude is a little skewed; I see post after post complaining about the burden of children, and those posts that are kid positive have only a vague "children are a blessing" message. If you do beleive those avoiding children are doing this for selfish reasons, you might consider the following (and encourage those people to do so also!)

According to US Census Bureau stats (which are a little out of date, sorry) The average high school graduate will earn about 1.2 Million dollars over the course of his or her life. Children are one of the best investments ever if you're wanting to help your country and society.

If you have children, you don't need a big screen TV; they're more entertaining and encourage healthful excercise as a bonus.

My grandparents had eight children. Because those children are here and care, my grandparents have been able to stay in their own home despite severe diabetes and Alzheimers without having to rely on strangers' care.

My mom has had a superfluity of well trained in house massage therapists for thirty years.

Hmmm... maybe I only WANT children for selfish reasons.

[51. EKB said the following at 5:39 PM on Apr 28:]

51

Julia H,

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that NFP requires "sinfully depriving" your spouse. I would assume that Christian married couples abstain from sexual relations at times for reasons such as illness, old age, recovery from childbirth, being separated due to business travel, etc. None of these are directly addressed in the Bible, but I can't imagine you would consider any of them sinful. I think that verse is addressing the issue of people who refuse intimacy with their spouse for selfish reasons, which is not at all what NFP is about. Rather, the couple is supposed to mutually agree about whether or not it is a good time to conceive, and abstain during the time the wife is thought to be fertile if necessary. The principle is supposed to be that the default is being open to life, and so the sacrifice of abstaining should only be used for good reason.

I am not married and so have never practiced NFP personally, but from what I understand, the amount of abstinence involved is somewhere around a week per cycle. Given that the study I linked to earlier showed NFP practicing couples have sex more often than those using contraception, I don't think it makes much sense to object to NFP for this reason.

I also wanted to mention to the women using the pill for medical reasons that those of us against contraception generally see no moral problem with that. I apologize if you feel judged in this discussion, as your situation is completely different and unrelated.

[52. Melissa S. said the following at 6:33 PM on Apr 28:]

52

Ashley #23,

If you had a moment of inaccurate recall and knew it, but couldn't use the internet to correct that, why is it a problem for someone else to do so? What is the value in contributing the product of a moment of inaccurate recall to the discussion? I thought the number sounded off but scrolled down to find that someone else had already mentioned it.

You mentioned that, "In today's world, having a family is hard work."

I don't know who would argue with that statement. Of course having children is hard work. But how about just, "having a family is hard work"? Having a child, period, is always harder than not having any children. It's always been hard and will always be hard. But, seriously, how is having lots of children in today's world harder than in the past? If anything, it seems that it would be easier for millions of people because of the the technological advances we have.

You don't always have to buy more and bigger when you have a larger family. (Obviously some of that is unavoidable.)My family of ten lived in a small home for 16 years. The four boys shared a small room and the four girls shared a small room. Yes, it was cramped, but I'm sure we had more room and material wealth than most of the rest of large families around the world enjoy.

And, a major point, a lot of parents aren't really there taking care of their kids like the parents on farms you mentioned. They drop them off at school and day care and others raise their children for them. They miss out on a lot of emotional and physical exhaustion that way. They also miss out on the joy of raising their own children. They set themselves up for a lonely old age.

"The emphasis here is, it's straight up bad stewardship to have kids you can't care for in excellence."

What is "in excellence"?

"My numbers may be faulty, but the logic is not."

Your emphasis that people should have good stewardship when having children is a point well taken. I just don't see how raising kids in today's world can possibly be a bigger burden than it used to be.

[53. Michelle (of Kansas) said the following at 6:41 PM on Apr 28:]

53

One would think that the Pill would move generations to marrying younger than they are now (on average). A lot of couples (both Christian and non-Christian) will make the excuse of not getting married because they don't have the money. And kids cost money. The Pill creates an environment where sex can be enjoyed without a high risk of getting pregnant.

Just a thought...

[54. Nathan (one of Dr. Mohler's Students) said the following at 6:43 PM on Apr 28:]

54

I think the point that Dr. Mohler is trying to make is that contraceptive use is an issue that we need to discuss seriously, as Christians, and not just ignore.

I know from his lectures and preaching that Dr. Mohler is not completely opposed to birth control, and does not believe that procreation is the only purpose of sex. But it is a purpose of sex, and should not be forever severed from it.

[55. dcresident said the following at 6:55 PM on Apr 28:]

55

Dr. Mohler says: "I do indeed believe that the development of the Pill 'has done more to reorder human life than any event since Adam and Eve ate the apple.'”

Um, what about the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Sounds like he needs to take a step back and see the big picture for a moment if you ask me.

[56. sandra pooh said the following at 8:04 PM on Apr 28:]

56

i have never felt the desire to have kids. so we'll probably use the pill for 30 more years.

the bible never hints birth control is wrong, so i feel good about it.

if regulating the number of kids you have is wrong, then everyone should be like the duggars (19 kids). there's no middle ground.

[57. JenFromMA said the following at 8:08 PM on Apr 28:]

57

At the rest of changing the subject entirely, I can't ignore the fact that apparently, having kids seems to damage the marital relationship a little bit. Is this true? I'm still single and want to be married/have children, but that has bothered me for a while.

[58. Mary said the following at 8:48 PM on Apr 28:]

58

The main problem that I have with birth control is that it can cause abortion. That's not the primary way it works (by preventing the sperm from even meeting the egg). But if that doesn't work, one of the thing it does is that it makes the lining in the uterus inhospitable for the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. I don't know the exact science behind, but that's the basics. So if you believe life starts from the moment of conception (when the egg is fertilized), then anything that could stop the fertilized egg from surviving and thriving is abortion. So I suppose you could take the risk that the pill would prevent the egg from being fertilized in the first place, but that's like closing your eyes and start firing a loaded gun aimlessly. Sure, you may not hit someone, but why even try. And, fyi, I didn't get the information about the pill makes it difficult for the fertilized egg to implant just from pro-life websites. I got them from secular websites like planned parenthood and other such sites.
As for the argument that if you don't take birth control pills, you're going to have lots of babies---that's a black and white type of thinking. We're scientifically advanced enough that we know that a woman is not always fertile, and that babies don't get made everytime a couple has sex. Just abstain during those times when the woman is fertile.
That can be done by keeping track of the cycle, checking the body temperature, and checking the cervical mucus. This method may not work as well as other chemical methods, but it can't cause abortion either.

[59. MarkS said the following at 9:24 PM on Apr 28:]

59

So the pill is preferable to alternatives, as some seem to think?

Like Jeremiah (2) points out, people have been people as long as there has been people. Shotgun weddings and the ill-matched mates they produced probably caused an increase in domestic violence and child abuse, although not infidelity. So in that way the pill might actually reduce social ills by reducing the # of bad marriages?

Given that some are going to "do it" regardless, is the pill preferable to abortion?

Now within good Christian marriages, we trust God for all things but also use the brains he's given us. So given that sex is a blessing and not to be abstained from, do we use our technology as an implement of Providence or stick to blind faith. I didn't know how to word that, I am comparing it to jumping in front of a bus or using God's brains to stay on the sidewalk. So can a couple exercise B.C. in any form, from drugs to methods, or is that just a lack of faith (that God will provide for any children He provides)?

Then to the image we present. Does any avoidance of the blessing of children hurt our position on the sanctity of life?

[60. Louise said the following at 10:22 PM on Apr 28:]

60

Julie - I had been thinking of that exact point for most of the way down the column.

To quote Jacob, #21: "The pill alters natural processes in a woman's body and that is going too far. I believe it is like tatooing or piercings. Scripture commands us not do so."

Does this mean Jacob that you are against all medications? After all thyroxine for hypothyroidism is altering the function of your body as are insulin sensitisers used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Should we just accept that God has let us have a particular medical condition and not accept the treatment which is available?

There are a few points I would like to make about the Pill:
1 - Most forms of the Pill work by preventing ovulation - hence they are not aborfacient.
2 - As other people have said the Pill is used in the management of a number of gynaecological disorders and significantly improves the lives of women with these disorders
3 - If the pint is that Birth Control is bad then this would included all forms of contraception, including the highly ineffective natural methods.
4 - Couples may be totally open to having children but using the common sense God gave them realise that now is not a wise (for whatever reason - financial, personal, health) time to have children. So having a method which still allows the couple to enjoy each other in marriage while not having to worry about whether the wife will fall pregnant. eg there are numbers of medications which it is considered too dangerous to be taking while pregnant as they result in significant birth defects.
5 - While we should trust God that He will provided children at the right time I think that He also expects us to use the resourses He has given us (after all where did the intellignce to make medications come from?) wisely and not expect Him to fix up all our messes.
6 - While there were temple prostitutes in Bible times this was only a small portion of the population. For most of history women have stayed virgins until marriage, not so much from a conviction that this is the right thing to do, but from a fear of the consequences that a baby outside marriage would cause them. Men, not having this fear, considered themselves free to have sex, hence the need for prostitutes. The Pill & the sexual revolution conicided because one let women have sex without fear of babies and the other let them have sex without fear of loss of reputation. It is unlikely that the sexual revolution would have been so 'successful' if the Pill had not been invented at the same time.

[61. Carol said the following at 10:30 PM on Apr 28:]

61

Oh wow. Do people really think that if you don't use chemical birth control you will have 18 children? Seriously, folks. My parents used NFP and had 8 children. My sisters have used NFP and have each had only two children (Both married 5-6 years now). I can't speak for my mother, but I know that my sisters did not get pregnant on NFP until they were ready to. They didn't need the Pill. The thing about NFP is that it only works well in committed monogamous relationships, thus "hooking up" cannot occur.

And sure, my parents don't have a lot of money, but they do have children who love and respect them. And we are ready to take care of them in their old age, if necessary. Aren't responsible, loving children better than money in the bank?

Maybe if we stopped treating children like unwanted pests, we could actually make them into something other than hedonistic thugs.

[62. Julie said the following at 10:49 PM on Apr 28:]

62

I guess I don't understand NFP--if couples are trying to prevent pregnancy by abstaining during the time of ovulation, how is that really different from using the pill? In terms of really leaving it in God's hands--why not just do nothing at all for birth control purposes?

[63. Simon from Texas said the following at 12:12 AM on Apr 29:]

63

In the article provided by Ted, Piper actually covers a lot of the nuances and fallacies that people have pointed out in their comments. It's definitely worth a read.

[64. Louise from Chicago said the following at 7:42 AM on Apr 29:]

64

Comment 39, if you had only been able to conceive and bear TWO CHILDREN, that would have been a "tragedy?"

There are infertile people out there who would be jumping proverbial cartwheels at the prospect of one successful pregnancy!

And comment 43, oh where oh where would anyone get the idea that the Boundless editors are against birth control, gee whiz, maybe you should read some of the articles and posts.

[65. Sara said the following at 7:57 AM on Apr 29:]

65

Isn't natural family planning (NFP) just another form of birth control? I've never understood the distinction. If you're doing anything to allow you to have sex without getting pregnant- be it the pill, a barrier method or NFP you are practicing birth control. You are not allowing for children to result from every/any sex act.

[66. Ashley said the following at 8:16 AM on Apr 29:]

66

Hannah said: Adults get to decide when to have children or when not to, based on what is good for them.

Right now, at this very moment in time, I'm deciding not to have children by abstaining from sex until after I'm married. Now, that's partially because it's honoring to God, partially because it's what's most beneficial for the child in the long run, and partially because a baby would be a massive disruption to my life. It is NOT GOOD for me to have a baby right now. Does that make my decision wrong?

In addition, Adults DON'T always get to decide when to have children whether their on the pill or not. There are accidental babies for families on NFP (my Bestie practiced NFP and has not one but TWO oops babies (and no income)). There are accidental babies on the pill. There are also issues of sterility. People try for years to have children but can't.

The problem with saying "You're planning your children so you're SELFISH" is that you're also not wholistically looking at how their decision and timing impacts the welfare of the child. Again, it is irresponsible to have a baby you cannot excellently care for (See Exhibit A: Nadia Suleman). I would argue that it was extremely selfish (and tragic!) of her to have eight children she can't afford and can't care for all at the same time just so she could "feel more loved".

The fact of the matter is that children, whether you have 2 or 20 ARE blessings to be enjoyed, cared for, loved and nurtured. and you HAVE to take into account your own capabilities as a parent - for THEIR benefit. Can you really raise up seven kids in the way that they should go? Do you WANT your babies to raise your babies? Those are important questions! Whether you're practiving NFP, or pharmecutical birth control, you're limiting the amount of children you're having. The idea that we're preordained to have some certain number of kids, that only God can determine, to me, seems more like fatalism than trusting God. God gave you a brain. Use it to make smart choices.

[67. Jayme said the following at 8:45 AM on Apr 29:]

67

Catherine->
I have a severe form of PCOS as well, not treatable by the usual methods (Metformin, Glucophage, diet, exercise) and I too am thin. Not uber thin, but not over weight and NFP works just fine.

The premise of NFP is that PCOS doesn't overwhelm it. Your temperatures are your temperatures. Other body signs are the same. Yes, it means that I consider myself in Phase II longer than someone who is completely regular, but it doesn't mean that I have no clue when (or if I'm ovulating). In fact, I am such a huge fan of what I've learned from NFP that I wish I would've done it years ago (the charting part of it, that is) to help my OB/GYN know what is really going on.

In fact, with PCOS women, you're more likely to be infertile (not ovulating), allowing for more days of intimacy - as long as you know how to read the signs.

All:
No one is disputing what The Pill (or other hormones) can do for women...but we're talking about what The Pill has done to sex within marriage. No one is saying all hormones are bad all the time.

[68. Jayme said the following at 8:49 AM on Apr 29:]

68

Julia->
I've never understood that argument.

If you're using NFP and you both (as a husband and wife) agree to abstain, then it can't be sinful.

That's like saying it would sinful to abstain right after you had a baby - if you aren't praying, then it's a sin. Or to abstain while one is battling cancer. If you both agree to abstain (for the right reasons), then it's not sinful. If your reason is to fight cancer or recover from birth or to prevent a pregnancy, then you're okay. It's NOT okay for one partner to routinely shut out the other. That's the argument that Paul is laying out.

I also don't think you have to take all or nothing of what the actual NFP document says. They'd say you have to abstain while you're fertile. No, it just means there might be certain restrictions placed upon you. It shouldn't mean all-or-nothing.

[69. M.R. said the following at 9:25 AM on Apr 29:]

69

lol. Hasn't anyone on here heard of Natural Family Planning? And no, it's not the Rhythm Method. It's taught in Catholic Marriage courses. My mom used it in Communist Poland, for heaven's sake! Me, my sister, and my brother are spaced three years apart like clockwork. I even remember her having a little calendar with little "baby" stickers on days where she was most fertile. Why, in this day and age of scientific knowledge, do people go to extremes of "you're not using birth control, therefore you want to be like the Duggars"? Do you know actually how hard that is to achieve for most women - even if they really wanted to?

Chemical birth control overrides a women's natural chemical makeup. It increases risk of cancer because of the high estrogen levels women are constantly exposed to while on the pill, because their bodies think they're pregnant the whole time. And then, after eight years on the pill when they finally WANT to get pregnant, they wonder why it's so darn hard to do so. Hence the huge artifical baby-making industry, which edges us ever-closer to a Brave New World.

(more fun facts: the pill decreases women's sexual drive and decreases muscle mass, making them more prone to obesity and osteoperosis. They body knows what it knows - and we're running roughshod over all its wisdom!)

[70. Mark W said the following at 9:41 AM on Apr 29:]

70

EKB #51,

"I also wanted to mention to the women using the pill for medical reasons that those of us against contraception generally see no moral problem with that."

If you're for NFP then you're not against contraception.

[71. Jayme said the following at 9:45 AM on Apr 29:]

71

Julie ->
Some people believe that The Pill doesn't just prevent conception, but in case conception occurs, then it prevents the egg from implanting. Some consider that abortion.

If you don't believe The Pill works that way, then I don't see a difference between The Pill and NFP.

See here: http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/A_Longer_Condensation_of_Does_The_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions.shtml

[72. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:04 AM on Apr 29:]

72

Rhythm method is great: it keeps the babies spaced about 15 months apart.

[73. Beth said the following at 10:05 AM on Apr 29:]

73

I'm on the Pill (well in derivative form), and can honestly say my problems with this method have not been moral. I agree with the other posts - God is ultimately in control of when my husband and I will conceive, and I see obsolutely no difference in (NFP) life vs. hormonal adjustments. God can send an 'opps' baby along to either category, although both are clearly making an effort to avoid pregnancy.

My issues with the Pill have been the adverse side effects. My libido is non-existent, lower back pain, nausea, dizziness...In this case I see where NFP becomes the most viable option. So, I'm not opposed to birth control in any form, but think the method can depend on what side-effects are experienced by the user. Especially in the case of libido - where there is more than a touch of irony considering the pill decreases sexual appetite...thereby doubly protecting against an unplanned pregnancy.

[74. Hannah C. O. said the following at 10:40 AM on Apr 29:]

74

Ashley (#67):

I think you may have misunderstood my comments. I also think I was not clear enough in my explanation!

I was not trying to say that anyone who wants to plan their family is wrong. The examples you gave are not selfish, but wise. Another example of this is that it would be irresponsible for my husband and I to try and have a baby right now.

You also gave examples which proved my other point: that God can and will override our planning if He sees fit! This is also where my belief comes from that you will NOT have a child unless He wants you to. It is more than fatalism: it is the way I see the world working. The only sure way to not have a child is to not have sex.

Also, being able to "care for a child excellently" has different interpretations. I helped care for my younger siblings and I do not see that as negative in any way! Nor do I think parents are obligated to pay for their children's college education (though if they have the ability and the wish to do so it is a wonderful thing).

The people I was thinking of are those who are married, have resources, and decide against children for reasons which have to do entirely with themselves. Or those people in similar circumstances who have an "oops" baby, grit their teeth and bear it, and leave their child with the impression that they were not wanted.

Children are precious human beings, not pawns of adults. They aren't pets, they are their own people. I think some, perhaps a lot, of adults miss this. And it disturbs me.

Or perhaps at almost 21 years old I am simply too close to the uncomfortableness of childhood.

[75. Julie said the following at 10:40 AM on Apr 29:]

75

Jayme, 71:

Yes, I can see there are differences, and advantages to NFP because it is more natural, etc.

The issue is that it is a way to try to control the timing of pregnancy. Which seems inconsistent with the idea that God is totally in control of opening or closing the womb and we shoud not interfere with that.

[76. Mickey said the following at 10:43 AM on Apr 29:]

76

Mark (#45), I agree 100% with your point. The couples to which I referred do not use natural methods of contraception...

On another note, before I became born-again, I took the pill because my doctors thought it the only solution to my awful dismennorhea (cramps, throwing up etc.)

After I gave my life to the Lord, I decided that if I believe the Bible, then I must believe that Jesus can heal my body and deliver me from that. So I stopped taking it...and now (up to 4 years later) I experience NONE of those symptoms AND my monthly cycle is more regular than before!

The idea is not to judge but to remember that God said, "be it unto you according to your faith."

Also, "let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind"

And "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." As a minister at my church always says, "When in doubt, leave it out!" If you don't have a clear conscience in taking the pill, then you need to consider why and go to God in prayer.

Let's always be in a place of heart where God can tell us even the opposite of what we want to hear and we quickly obey.

My advice to anyone is not to stop taking the pill but to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.

[77. Benjamin said the following at 10:44 AM on Apr 29:]

77

"... the pill decreases women's sexual drive" (comment #69)

"... considering the pill decreases sexual appetite" (comment #73)

It is a fairly common misconception that the pill necessarily causes a decrease in sex drive -- certain pills do for certain women (generally the more Progesterone-heavy pills). But if you are experiencing a lack of sex drive after going on the pill, for the sake of both you and your husband, talk to your doctor. It is very possible that you can find a different pill that does not cause this problem.

As for the issue of the pill causing abortions (brought up in comment #71), I believe there was a topic about that on this site a while back. The pill can indeed cause the death of a conceived embryo, and it always seemed to me that no matter how likely or unlikely this is, if one believes the soul is present at conception, one must be opposed to the BCP. However, most Christians' position seems to boil down to "I think it is probably unlikely, so I am not going to worry about it." Or, perhaps even more commonly, "I'm not going to think about it."

[78. Hannah C. O. said the following at 10:45 AM on Apr 29:]

78

About hormonal birth control itself:

Some women have hormonal problems, and the Pill helps correct those problems. If I was one of those women, I would gladly use the Pill! It is serving the medicinal purpose of returning body chemistry to the state it should be in.

Other women's hormones work like they should. I am one of these women. When I take the Pill, it causes hormonal problems in the form of depression. I do not want to take the Pill. If my hormones work on their own then I do not want to make them work abnormally. This is the core reason why I do not take the Pill.

[79. Jennifer said the following at 11:01 AM on Apr 29:]

79

Thanks Candice and others for sharing your stories on use of NFP. It is amazing to learn of the way God made us and the beautiful communication and love that can come from accepting what God has for you in terms of children and family. A total self giving to your spouse including your fertility is beautiful and yes at times sacrificial.

[80. Ashley said the following at 11:19 AM on Apr 29:]

80

Melissa:

If you had a moment of inaccurate recall and knew it, but couldn't use the internet to correct that, why is it a problem for someone else to do so? What is the value in contributing the product of a moment of inaccurate recall to the discussion? I thought the number sounded off but scrolled down to find that someone else had already mentioned it.

You read my second post, so you should know my issue was not with the correction, but with the snippyness. Disagreement on an issue is no reason to be snide. A simple, "Hey, I don't think your number is right, Google said XYZ" would have been appropriate. "C'mon, you've got the internet, too, how hard is to to do some research? Oh I'll condescend to do it for you." was not.

Melissa, you also said this: "And, a major point, a lot of parents aren't really there taking care of their kids like the parents on farms you mentioned. They drop them off at school and day care and others raise their children for them. They miss out on a lot of emotional and physical exhaustion that way. They also miss out on the joy of raising their own children. They set themselves up for a lonely old age."

I couldn't agree more! And if you're having MORE kids which you're dropping off at daycare, how is that better than having less that you're already not bonding with? If you're going to miss a lot of time spent with just two or three children -- you can make that time up on evenings and weekends, spending a lot of time being attentive to each child. If you're working a nine-to-five with seven+ You're not going to have time to one-on-one with each of the kids even if you assign them a rotational day of the week!

I would say that taking care of your kids "in excellence" is something that is between each set of parents and God. If you think it is excellent that you have four kids to a room and you're confident that you can show each of them the love and individual attention they require and raise them up to be strong in the Lord... have four kids to a room.

Nevertheless, I think that anyone saying that it ISN'T harder to raise a large family in today's world is being stubbornly naive. "It worked for us!" is a microcosm. Even if you homeschool, you're going to have to teach multiple grades at a time, keep up with all the kid's school work individually, track each of their progresses. If you don't, then you've got to juggle all the sporting events, parent-teacher conferences, not to mention homework that gets increasingly bizzare as the public school system goes on... And that's assuming you don't have any kids that require extra attention like a special needs baby or a problem child. You can't just show a kid how to use a plow, or shoot a gun, or sew a dress anymore and know that it's going to make a life for them. You could do that 100, maybe even 50 years ago, but now to make it in the west you've got to have an education and that takes time, money, attention and parental dedication (Whatever the public school system is selling you).

Are we, in general, better off than the rest of the world economically? You bet! Is that a reason to drive ourselves into poverty with children we can't afford? Is it good for your children to position them at a disadvantage to their peers because you lack the time, resources or money to be able to give them the individual attention they need to succeed?

You are in the West, and you've got to grow where you're planted (unless you uproot and move somewhere else). The culture we live in is the culture we live in. You can raise your kids to honor God to the best of your ability by making wise decisions to help them be a witness to that culture. If you feel like that means you need to have a big family, and you've done what it takes to be able to raise them up to be excellent examples to their generation of what Christ-followers should look like, by all means, do it, but don't assume it makes you holier than somebody who doesn't choose to live that way.

If you DON'T feel you need to have a big family, or you don't have the ability or cash to care for a lot of kids, then use your brain and nurture and be thankful for the children you have.

[81. EKB said the following at 11:39 AM on Apr 29:]

81

Mark W (70) and others who think NFP and contraception are the same thing,

First, I'm not out to condemn those who feel differently about this issue, but I don't think Christianity as a whole has done a good job of encouraging people to think critically about our contraceptive culture. From the comments I'm seeing, I think people on the pro-contraception side have some misconceptions about what the other side believes. I hesitate to get into the specifics here because this is such a divisive issue and difficult to explain succinctly, but I will try.

The issue is not that NFP is "natural" and contraceptives are "unnatural." Rather, some of us are against contraception because we believe that God designed reproduction to be intrinsically connected to sex for a reason. With contraception, the couple chooses to participate in the pleasurable aspect of sex while at the same time directly inhibiting and rejecting the life-giving aspect. With NFP, the couple prayerfully discerns whether or not it is a good time to welcome a child, and if necessary abstains from sex while the wife is fertile. The unitive and procreative aspects are not separated.

It is not a perfect analogy, but here is another way to look at it. The pleasure of eating and the nutritional effects of digestion are also intrinsically connected. It is sickness and/or gluttony to eat a bunch of junk food for the pleasure of it and then vomit it up to avoid the consequences. There is an enormous difference between choosing to avoid eating something until you are ready to accept the calories and nutrients and being bulimic.

[82. Annika said the following at 11:44 AM on Apr 29:]

82

"Chemical birth control overrides a women's natural chemical makeup. It increases risk of cancer because of the high estrogen levels women are constantly exposed to while on the pill..."

Again, some fact-checking could help people out. The pill, as used today, has very low doses of estrogen, and for the most part reduces the risk of a variety of cancers. The only cancer risk that is increased is breast cancer, and this risk recedes when you stop taking the pill.

(Historically, the pill contained a great deal more estrogen than it does now, and this did pose a higher risk of cancers. However, this was 20-30 years ago.)

~Annia (Biology PhD student and contraceptive user)

[83. JB said the following at 11:58 AM on Apr 29:]

83

MR #69,

Your comments about the health effects of hormonal birth control are incorrect and dangerous.

Cancer and hormonal contraception has been an area of controversy and research for quite some time. The best data currently is that hormonal contraception decreases the risk of ovarian, uterine, and perhaps colorectal cancer. The risk of breast cancer in current and recent past users of hormonal contraception may be slightly increased BEFORE THE AGE OF 35. Breast cancer is very rare in these women, so the risk of breast cancer may increase from a baseline of about 10 in 10,000 to roughly 12.5 in 10,000. These cancers are usually detected early. There is NO INCREASED RISK for breast cancer after the age of 35 in current or former users. There is no evidence for an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer.

New evidence from the UK indicates that having ever taken oral contraceptives may correlate with decreased all-cause mortality and decreased cancer mortality.

That being said, the use of any medication will come with both risks and benefits. In particular, women who take hormonal contraception (and, really, everyone else) should not smoke. Women who are interested in hormonal contraception should discuss the issue in detail with their doctor, not some people on the internet.

[84. JB said the following at 12:08 PM on Apr 29:]

84

Mary #58,

I think an interesting thing about your argument is that, even if you believe that the prevention of embryo implantation is one of the mechanisms by which hormonal contraception works (and I think this is unlikely with most products), one need not hold this to be abortion. It's entirely consistent (biblically, scientifically, philosophically) to be pro-life and to believe that life begins at implantation, or when blood forms, or when the heart beats, or when the mother begins to feel movement. It is not the case that to be pro-life one has to believe that life begins at conception. That's a relatively recent innovation and I'm not sure that it's warranted.

[85. Jo said the following at 12:31 PM on Apr 29:]

85

Ted, thanks for the link to Desiring God. I think that article puts it very well indeed.

[86. Kelly-1 said the following at 12:37 PM on Apr 29:]

86

I'm 32 and have never been on the Pill. This is for a couple of reasons:

(1) I don't like the idea of changing my natural body rhythms

(2) Should I ever be blessed enough to get married, I don't want to have done ANYTHING that could cause problems

(3) If I'm in a dating relationship, it adds weight to the consequences of sin

i.e. By KNOWING that I could get pregnant (no birth control method is 100% effective), it makes the decision to sleep with someone even more grave. It's yet another weapon in helping me fight temptation. And praise God, it has worked in my life.

---

It's been quite interesting when I travel with non-Christian girls and we cross time zones. They've all been fussing over what time to take their pill and can't quite believe it when I tell them that I'm not on it!

[87. Marian said the following at 12:45 PM on Apr 29:]

87

Wow, before people line up to defend the Pill, what about reading its methods of action as they are listed in the Physicians Desk Reference or in the very, very fine print not used in promotional materials for patients? It's abortifacient, folks. That alone should remove it as a birth control method for practicing Christians.

BTW, its abortifacient action may also negatively affect your fertility when you feel like you want to turn it back "on".

It's also amazing to see how little ingenuity people see in God's design, which is for sex within marriage. No, He did not design it for humans to be solely for procreation (as evidenced by the fact that women are not fertile all the time and for all seasons of life). No one is really saying that. An example of this genius in His creation is how breastfeeding -- giving babies, hands down, the best nutrition, amongst other things -- spaces children. Women in non-Western countries, like my grandmother, weren't exactly having a baby a year (like the Duggers?), even if they did get pregnant a lot (they lost many babies, and started much earlier than we do here). They breastfeed their kids. I'm not talking about occasional breastfeeding. Even after menstruation resumes, it can take *months* for full-fledged fertility to resume. There is much written about this online for those intersted. If I was in my 20s, I'd be content to celebrate this God-given spacing, but I'm not...and it's working a little too well...my daughter is 19 months old and has been weaned three and a half months ago, and still no pregnancy....God designed our bodies to take some time to recuperate. Of course not everyone will go 15.5 months without a period post-partum, but there can be factors that play into that...diet, weight loss, missed feedings, medication...but the design as planned by God without these factors is meant to work.

I completely agree with those who have actually tried NFP that it works (breastfeeding even aside), and that part of the beauty of it is increased communication (and that's never a bad thing in marriage, and particularly when it's about intimacy) and shared responsilility between both husband and wife.

Finally, no one's saying promescuity didn't exist before the Pill..for crying out loud, it's listed in the Bible as sinful, so it's been around. But there's no denying that it has facilitated sin to a degree unheard of before. And that's never a good thing.

[88. HoosierBeck said the following at 1:03 PM on Apr 29:]

88

A lot to think about and chew on...However, there is one VERY valid question that I would really like to see addressed by Boundless (maybe Candice or Ted since they are responding to comments:) What is the essential difference between NFP and the Pill in the context of marriage? If they both try to control fertility to some extent, how is that different?
I honestly would be very interested hearing that opinion.
Also, it is obvious that strong feeling have been brought out by this discussion...Boundless, I am open-minded about this discussion, but you need to know that if you make a blog without many qualifiers and then defend your statements vigorously, that looks like some sort of blanket statement against the pill and birth control. You may not have intended it that way, but it does. So please qualify your statements if needed, but also please don't get upset that was the assumption made. I have been blessed by your insights many times on this site, but on this topic, I've been surprised by the strident tone you've used in some of your responses (not all).

[89. Ted Slater said the following at 1:17 PM on Apr 29:]

89

I'd rather this conversation not turn into a discussion about the blessings of NFP, and how it's God's preferred means of birth control.

FWIW, my wife doesn't use The Pill. It made her sick, and so she stopped using them. We do use contraceptives, but not that one.

As far as NFP, I've found that it fosters an inordinate sense of pride in many of those who practice it. Kinda like the "I'm better than you" attitude that some women have who choose to give birth at home with a midwife and no epidural, rather than in a hospital with physicians and advanced medical equipment.

If you go the NFP route, please examine your heart to be sure you don't take pride in your decision. It's fine, but you're not a better person because you use NFP. It's fine, but you're no more "godly" than someone who selects another form of birth control.

Personally, I think NFP can be cruel to women who practice it, denying them sexual enjoyment when they're most desirous of it.

[90. Susanne said the following at 1:28 PM on Apr 29:]

90

(This may be a bit redundant now - tried to post last night and had trouble.)

I'm another woman with a reproductively significant medical condition. It's a funny place to be. I'm a Christian. I have not yet had any need for contraception. When the time comes, I may need help conceiving, rather than help avoiding conception. And yet I've spent several years as a consumer of the products of the "contraceptive revolution."

Based on my experience of dealing with this paradoxical situation, especially in the midst of preparations with my boyfriend for engagement and marriage, I want to issue a plea that we as Christians be more careful in our conversations about contraception.

I understand the spirit of Mohler's criticism, and am mostly sympathetic. I'm glad he's encouraging evangelicals to join the discussion. But these excerpts suggest to me that he’s missing some of what's really at stake. It's not just the severing of sex and childbearing, or the transformation of pregnancy and children from the "natural gifts of the marital union" into "elective choices." True, all of these can be consequences of technologically controlling the reproductive process. But for infertile couples, these things happen even without technological help. The connection between sex and childbearing is painfully severed (or at least severely weakened), pregnancy is not an elective choice, and children are not natural gifts of the marital union.

Likewise, there are some really good reasons for technologically controlling the reproductive process. For me and many others, OC pills have made daily life a lot less painful, and protected against serious long-term problems. I've recently discontinued the pills, because I would love to have the option of using NFP or FAM when I get married. But I had to start taking another medication at the same time to make this even a possibility, and it may not work. It also has some unpleasant side effects.

I've included these details because I'd love to see more opportunities for people like me to join the contraceptive discussion. The landscape of options is far more complicated for us, and it's hard to find resources for navigating it. I'd also like more women to be aware of just how common these conditions are, so that they wouldn't take their fertility for granted.

But NONE of the details of my situation matter when it comes to the spiritual significance of sex and reproduction. However difficult or easy it proves for me and my future husband to get me pregnant (and remember, it takes two), we will still fail to submit ourselves daily to Christ. We will still attempt to take our family's fortunes into our own hands. We will still struggle to honor each other in our sexual relationship. I'm not married and I haven't had sex, so my perspective may be somewhat limited. But I wish people like Mohler would talk more about these deep spiritual struggles, which apply universally to all people in all times and places, and focus less on the effects of specific modern contraceptive practices. It's not that I think the two categories of things are connected. I just worry that the cultural generalizations sweep right past a good number of people, while leaving the stubborn layer of spiritual grime completely untouched.

[91. Ted Slater said the following at 1:31 PM on Apr 29:]

91

Marian (#87) -- no, The Pill is not necessarily an "abortifacient."

See this blog I wrote -- "Birth Control: Baby Killer?" -- for details.

[92. Mark W said the following at 1:44 PM on Apr 29:]

92

EKB (#81)

I'm not trying to single you out, and I don't want to be a jerk about this, but I have to take issue w/ what I believe is the logical fallacy behind the NFP-only movement:

"With NFP, the couple prayerfully discerns whether or not it is a good time to welcome a child, and if necessary abstains from sex while the wife is fertile. The unitive and procreative aspects are not separated." (emphasis mine)

Except they are. You're intentionally separating them by abstaining while the wife is fertile. Having sex only when the wife isn't fertile is to intentionally solely enjoy the unitive aspect of sex while trying to avoid the procreative aspect. That makes it by definition a method of contraception (trying to prevent conception). As far as that is concerned, there really is no difference. At all. Your goal is still to enjoy the unitive aspect of sex while avoiding conception.

[93. Sara said the following at 2:11 PM on Apr 29:]

93

Ted wrote:

"Personally, I think NFP can be cruel to women who practice it, denying them sexual enjoyment when they're most desirous of it."

I never thought of it that way before. Interesting.

[94. Jayme said the following at 2:28 PM on Apr 29:]

94

I think "by-the-book" NFP can be cruel to women who practice it...there is a distinction to be made....

[95. Benjamin said the following at 2:35 PM on Apr 29:]

95

Ted (#91) -- in the blog you linked to you wrote, "Pro-life physicians who have carefully and conscientiously studied this issue have come to different conclusions about the abortifacient potential of COCs."

I think you are, perhaps unintentionally, misstating -- almost no one disagrees about the abortifacient potential of oral contraceptives. That is why emergency contraceptive (the "morning after pill") is essentially identical to the birth control pill (indeed in some cases the BCP can be used as emergency contraceptive), and is still effective if conception has occurred. What is debated is the frequency with which the abortifacient potential is realized.

Personally, I think for anyone that believes the soul is present at conception, playing that kind of percentages game is morally unacceptable. Would the argument that a woman only had 1 abortion out of all the times she had sex, be acceptable? Of course not. So why should the argument that the BCP only causes an abortion 1% of the time (or whatever it might be) be legitimate?

[96. IWishToRemainAnonymous said the following at 2:51 PM on Apr 29:]

96

Mickey (#76) - it's great that you were healed from your physical problems after being saved. I tried a number of natural means to get my painful cycles under control, had faith God could take care of it, had people pray over me, etc., and my condition continued to worsen. Eventually I made the decision that I needed to take the meds that had been made available. The three months' worth of free samples given to me by my doctor sat untouched for nearly a year. It was not a decision I took lightly.

Kelly-1 (#86) I was concerned about future fertility issues when I started the pill in my teens, and when my now-fiance and I started dating I talked with my doctor about it. She told me that quite frequently, the first-line treatment for infertility is actually to put the woman on the pill for a few months! Apparently if your cycles are so all over the place that you have no clue when you're fertile, it's difficult to try to conceive. After a few months on the pill, the woman usually has a couple of months of regularity during which fertility might be more easily predicted.

[97. Julie said the following at 3:14 PM on Apr 29:]

97

Another major difference between family life today in the west, and family life historically and globally, is that most of us live in nuclear families. I mean, I would be happy to have 6 kids if I lived in an extended family with many hand around to help, and a husband who worked on the farm but was around much more than your average husband workinga 9-5 job with a commute. I would argue that a nuclear family with only one adult at home with children is profoundly out of sync with God's design, and perhaps it is that difference that makes it a negative thing for some families to have many children.

[98. Cat said the following at 3:21 PM on Apr 29:]

98

Well, when I get married I plan to use the Pill.

Why?

Well...I've been very patient and I plan to enjoy all of marriage to the fullest extent possible. *grins*

But seriously, if God wants me to have a kid I doubt a little pill would stop Him from getting me pregnant. Even abstinence didn't help Mary.

[99. Jo said the following at 3:49 PM on Apr 29:]

99

Cat,
"Even abstinence didn't help Mary."

Haha! Very true. What God wants, God gets. :)

[100. Anna said the following at 3:52 PM on Apr 29:]

100

I am the eldest of six children. I loved growing up in a large family, it taught me selflessness, service and how to love more. I'm so thankful that my parents allowed God to plan their family.
When I get married someday I would love to have a large family. :)

A few things I have observed in my own family and many friends of ours.

1. Breastfeeding (without a schedule) is a natural form of birth control. Breastfeeding delays a woman's cycle and leaves her (mostly) unable to conceive for a good length of time. (1-3 years)

2. I have four friends and friends of friends who were on the Pill for the first few years of their married life, they all had trouble conceiving and had early miscarriages. Before finally conceiving and carrying to term healthy babies.
I belive that to alter your cycle with chemicals is not healthy for you or your future babies.

We need to have Jesus' attitude towards children, and that is one of welcome and love. They are gifts, priceless and precious.
No matter if you have two or twelve. :)

[1. Ashley said the following at 10:14 AM on Apr 28:]

1

eeeeeeeeh.

I've had a lot of in-depth conversations with a lot of people on birth control, and it's one of those complicated issues where nobody really knows what side to come down on. But I think there are a lot of concerns that come with modern life that mean that we can't all live like the Duggars.

We aren't all carving a living out of the prarie with our bare hands anymore, so there's no need to have 15 kids, like in our grandparents' generation, so they can help tend the farm. It costs what, $1.5 M to raise one child in the west? While they may be the historical norm, big families are a hardship in today's society -- it's irresponsible to bring a child you can't reasonably care for into the world.

It really, seriously bothers me when people that can't be wise stewards with what they have have more kids because they're taking some kind of moral stand against birth control, but then turn around and stick out their hands for some kind of government assistance. It makes me get all 1 Timothy 5:8 up in here: But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

You want to take a moral stance against birth control? Great! You do what it takes to become a Doctor, or a Lawyer, or an Astrophysicist so you can provide for and your wife can stay home and take care of all the babies you're gonna be making.

[2. Jeremiah (from Denver) said the following at 10:21 AM on Apr 28:]

2

"...the marital union was itself weakened by the Pill, because the avoidance of pregnancy facilitated adultery and other forms of non-marital sex."

This is one of these statements where I have to cry foul! !!! Is there any evidence to support this other than anecdotal speculation on the part of Mohler? Sexual sin, adultery, fornication, and lust have been around since original sin...

The pill is far more ubiquitous in today's society, and there are probably less births per capita because of it. However, people are also living for much much much longer than in generations past.

That said, I believe that you would be hard pressed to say that this generation (that grew up with easy access to birth control) is engaged in any more or less fornication than during say during the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's. What about during the days of the early church where temple prostitution was a regular part of pagan religion? There was no pill back then … but amazingly people were still having plenty of sex outside of marriage.

[3. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:27 AM on Apr 28:]

3

My thoughts on The Pill:

The genie is out of the bottle so to speak, and there's little sense trying to put it back in. Even if Christians en masse stopped using it, I highly doubt it would reduce promiscuity or increase marriages.

What's also interesting is that the only major Christian denomination to still denounce The Pill, the Roman Catholic Church, has had almost zero impact on practicing Catholics in America. Ask how many Catholics who use The Pill despite direct instruction not to and it'll probably be quite high.

Also consider that there are other forms of contraceptives other than The Pill. The Pill was not allowed into Japan for almost 40 years (but interestingly enough Viagra was approved within months. Of course it wasn't because Japan tends towards a patriartic society). So condomns were used instead. People were still having sex there out of wedlock and married couples still not having children (thus resulting in their near-negative growth rate). So what now, we try and ban all condoms?

Really, the key "problem" are people's economic attitudes and attidues towards children in general. Raising children is expensive. Very expensive. How many people choose abortions because they "can't afford to keep the baby"? How many couples limit their children because "they can't afford to have more". I'm not here to start a battle over how many children married couples should have. That is between them an God. But I do believe that most people are not being honest with themselves for having less children rather than more. Part of the blame is because we are no longer live in an agrarian economy where having more hands made it beneficial. With an industrial economy you don't need as many bodies working.

But I don't believe that couples should just starting having "quiver fulls" of children just for the sake of doing so. Having too many children has its consequences too. Just look at China.

As for the argument that contraception avoids the "punishment" of having a child, again, it's a moot point in today's world. The focus should not be so much on The Pill itself as much it should be on our attitudes towards the value of children and ultimately, the value of human life. Making sure that the lives of the unborn are protected. Making sure that however many children couples have that they can provide a good future for them.

Those are just my thoughts.

[4. Josh said the following at 10:37 AM on Apr 28:]

4

Man- here comes a lot of discussion, I think.

Is Mohler, or you, advocating never using oral contraceptives? Mohler's website seems to lean in that direction. I couldn't tell if he draws a distinction between the methods (barrier v. OCs), or the goals (Sex within marriage without the "concern/burden/joy" of children.

I don't know if thats the direction you intend for these comments to go! If not, don't worry about publishing this comment.

On a note more inline with this post- man, after 50 years, the world sure has changed, in response to the Pill.

[5. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 10:52 AM on Apr 28:]

5

To answer the question "Now what?":

Well, for Evangelicals isn't it obvious? A return to traditional Christian teaching (admitted by all Protestants prior to the 20th century) on the intrinsic immorality of the practice of contraception (so-called 'birth control') is the only choice and way forward.

However, this necessity is only partially recognized by the writer by his lament that "Christians must not join the contraceptive revolution as mere consumers of the Pill or other birth control methodologies."

What is it they say about horses and barn doors?

[6. Bri said the following at 10:55 AM on Apr 28:]

6

Thanks Candice, that's really interesting. And timely! My fiance and I are just in the middle of discussing birth control and the different forms of contraceptives. After much thought and prayer, he's come to a place where he would like to use the Pill... but I'm not quite there yet. On one hand, I find the security the Pill provides immensely appealing. On the other hand, I don't like the idea of changing my body in such an unnatural way and I can't help but think about whether or not we would be preventing potential children that we would love and cherish from being born into our family.
I've found John MacArthur's resources really helpful as I'm praying through this issue. His book Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong has a sections devoted to this topic, there's an excerpt here: http://www.gtycanada.org/Resources/Questions/QA114_What-does-the-Bible-teach-about-birth-control

I'd love to see what other readers are thinking!

[7. Vanessatheblessah said the following at 11:22 AM on Apr 28:]

7

Skipping the party with you.

[8. jen said the following at 11:25 AM on Apr 28:]

8

It's important to note that the pill isn't just used for contraception. Some women take it for medical conditions, i.e. polycystic ovary syndrome.

[9. Leigh said the following at 11:26 AM on Apr 28:]

9

Ummm.......

I'm not really sure what to think or where I stand on this issue. I've never really thought about it this way. I see where you are coming from and I get it. Large familys were common "back then" before the pill, should we go back to that? My Grandfather was one of 12, birth years aging from 1911 - 1927. Are christians REALLY ready to give up their chance for the empty nest? Spend their golden years raising teenagers? I doubt most christians will go this far, so you can forget about the world. They are going to laugh this one up. I know a family who believes this way and, well, I will spare you the details of what her insides ending up being like after 7 kids. I may be selfish, but I don't want make babies to the point where my insides are fallingout. My great grandmother had a 6 year old at the same time she had a 30 year old. NObody can afford day care for that many kids. Womens rights people will run with this one too. Stay home be a baby machine and raise kids? Thats the only thing you could do if you had an un controled number of kids. OR you could just NOT have sex unless you wanted a baby. Even Christians guys wont go for that. I admit we control FAR to much, and we like to play God. But honestly... I don't want to be pregnant every other year when Im married. Also, if you pick on birth control, you have to pick on the tubes being tied ect. I think I agree.. I just don't want to do it personaly. I know thats wrong, just being honest.

[10. Joy said the following at 12:03 PM on Apr 28:]

10

I still don't see separating sex from childbearing as being anything like separating sex from marriage. People were having adultery and fornicating long before birth control and I don't really think birth control in and of itself is responsible for an increase in these behaviors. Yes birth control did come into existence at the same time as the sexual revolution and it was/is used wrongly by fornicators and adulterers, but I don't think that should stop married Christians from using it. Also, as sad and wrong as it is for people to be out there fornicating and committing adultery I think I would rather them use a form of birth control that prevents fertilization in the first place then for them to be having abortions.

[11. JB said the following at 12:30 PM on Apr 28:]

11

Is there any evidence that the availability of chemical contraception caused increased marital infidelity? It seems that this would be a very difficult assertion to support.

[12. Julie said the following at 12:43 PM on Apr 28:]

12

Well, I could see from that article someone posted on contraception how it has had its downsides as far as the marriage market.

On the other hand, realistically, we live in a society where we do not need kids to help with the farm, we need to raise them up to function in a knowledge economy, and we need to fund our own retirements and not expect our kids to do so. For most people, accomplishing all of the above will mean limiting the number of children at some point.

[13. Ultraviolet said the following at 12:49 PM on Apr 28:]

13

I don't know if this is too personal of a question, but I'm curious about this. Since Boundless writers are against the pill...do you use any form of contraception? Are you planning on having a large family? Maybe this is an intrusive question, but I think it's relevant, because instead of just banning the pill, you need to provide us with real alternatives, and so I guess what you're really saying is that everyone pretty much has to have a large family. Is that correct? Is withdrawal okay? I know Motte has around four biological kids, as well as four adopted children, but no one else seems to talk about having a large family so I'm just trying to figure out what you do, if anything (since I would assume that if you're not using contraception as so many articles advocate, you all would be having a ton of kids).

[14. Jacob said the following at 1:02 PM on Apr 28:]

14

It amazes me that when a couple starts talking about marriage one of the first conversations seems to be about what kind of birth control will be used. This world has been so brain washed that birth control is necessary for marriage. Sexual intercourse is not the only pleasure to be had in marriage. If a couple wants to delay having children then explore the wonders of God's design for marriage.
Even many of my Christian friends have the mindset of birth control is a must. To get married and not use it seems unusual to them.
As a single young man I would like to find a young woman that shares a more traditional view about God's design for marriage.

[15. Will said the following at 1:11 PM on Apr 28:]

15

This is one of those issues where I feel like even if The Pill had never been invented, people's hearts would STILL be as lustful and wicked.

So what if fear of personal consequences (unwanted childbirth) prevents one from unfettered fornication?

Unless one's motivation for avoiding premarital intimacy is a desire to please God, it really doesn't matter if you do it or not...ya still have a wicked and adulterous heart, and THAT is the true problem, not spiraling teen pregnancy rates.

[16. Amir Larijani said the following at 1:17 PM on Apr 28:]

16

Whoa...I didn't realize that sex makes babies!

[17. Melissa said the following at 1:25 PM on Apr 28:]

17

The issue of birth control has been on my mind a lot lately. I have been married almost two years now and am the proud mother of a honeymoon baby that I wouldn't trade for all the money in the world. My husband and I have been practicing Natural Family Planing (periodic abstinence) to avoid having another child too soon. Then last month we both felt 'ready' for another ... but didn't conceive. I felt so foolish for preventing God's blessings earlier and now that I'm 'ready,' I can't 'make' it happen.

"Birth control" really is a misleading term. We can only control the not-conceiving end of things. I have heard (scary!) stories of people who try for years to conceive a child and have all these procedures done... and are still childless. The fact is that we aren't in control. Unfortunately, someone who's been on the pill for years has the illusion that the moment they go off of it, a baby will come along.

I'm glad that God taught me this lesson now at 27 and not when I'm even older. How could I be so bold as to shun God's blessing and then want it now? Aside from the baby-making aspect, birth control does affect a marriage. When you're trying to get pregnant or trying non to get pregnant, the mystery and beauty of sex is harder to find.

I've learned a lot of humility lately. Children are a blessing. The Bible says so. It also advises the young women to "marry and bear children" and I think parenthood is often the common vehicle that He uses to sanctify us. Many people limit or prevent childbirth in their marriages in order to facilitate selfish lifestyles. I want to be open to God's blessings, but not anxious trying to make it happen either.

[18. Ted Slater said the following at 1:26 PM on Apr 28:]

18

Ashley (#1) -- you warned about the financial burden of children by saying it costs "$1.5 M to raise one child in the west."

Come on, Ashley. You left a comment, which tells me that you've got internet access. How hard is it to do a google search before stating some factoid as though it's true?

OK, I did your research for you, and it looks like the average child costs closer to $150,000 to raise from birth to adulthood. And that factors in "child care" -- an expense a lot of people (including my wife and I) don't pay. And "housing," which is kind of weird, since most children live at home with their parents.

In truth, for most families, it doesn't cost a whole lot to raise children. And no, "big families are a hardship in today's society." I know a lot of people with modest incomes and large families, and they are the opposite of a "hardship" on society.

[19. Irish Dude said the following at 1:30 PM on Apr 28:]

19

I agree with #3. Mike Theemling...

Can the blog writers here answer honestly that they didn't have vasectomy's or tubal ligations after they were "done" having children after not using the Pill or some other form of contraceptive? If so, why? Doesn't that counter the entire idea that not using the Pill was promoted in this article? If you are going to go au naturale in a Christian marriage then logic dictates you will end up like the Duggars with 10+ children and having children potentially well into your 40's. How many of you women here plan on having kids through your 40's? The fact that 99% (I made that number up, but you get the idea) of Christian families do not have 10+ children indicates to me that they either participated in some form of contraception until they were "ready to have kids" or they went au naturale until they had their 2, 3, or 4+ kids and then had surgery to make sure they couldn't have any more.

What logical difference in doing it au naturale via the way God made our bodies is there with a pill blocking the brains signal to ovulate vs getting your tubes tied? Why is one promoted but the other discouraged?

[20. Jeremiah (from Denver) said the following at 1:39 PM on Apr 28:]

20

Other people are certainly entitled to their views, and I do think there are good reasons to support Christian couples having children… However, I see very little biblical evidence that God created sex ONLY for the purpose of procreation. I seem to recall reading that humans are the only mammals that have sex regardless of fertility; in all other species, sex only occurs when the female is ovulating. If God made us to enjoy sex just for sex, He did so to His glory.

The verses about the man becoming one with his wife in flesh, and the fact that the man’s body belongs to the woman and vice versa indicate (to me) that part of the marital commitment is satisfying physical needs for both the man and wife. Babies may in fact be the natural outcome for unprotected sex on a regular basis, but that fact, in and of itself, does not provide sufficient evidence that birth control is wrong in any way.

Just so that Christian women do not get the wrong idea about how Christian men think... But I am the polar opposite of Jacob (#14). I can’t say it’s a deal breaker, but I would be very reluctant to date a woman that doesn’t believe in birth control of some sort… And yes, I do want to have kids. I just have no desire to have my “brood of offspring” dominate the entire world… ;)

[21. Jacob said the following at 1:39 PM on Apr 28:]

21

To answer Ultraviolet:

I believe practicing other ways of contraception are a better alternative. The pill alters natural processes in a woman's body and that is going too far. I believe it is like tatooing or piercings. Scripture commands us not do so.
As far as condoms and barrier methods. Go for it. But I believe there are greater enjoyments to be had than strictly intercourse. Will not go into details on here. But God made more of the body to have pleasure than just those parts. We as a culture have become too obsessed about just intercourse.
Ultimately I think the pill removes some of the preciousness out of sex between married couples. It becomes a gift that we get bored with rather than treasure.

[22. Phoebe said the following at 1:41 PM on Apr 28:]

22

Leigh says "Are christians REALLY ready to give up their chance for the empty nest? Spend their golden years raising teenagers? I doubt most christians will go this far, so you can forget about the world. They are going to laugh this one up. I know a family who believes this way and, well, I will spare you the details of what her insides ending up being like after 7 kids. I may be selfish, but I don't want make babies to the point where my insides are fallingout. My great grandmother had a 6 year old at the same time she had a 30 year old. NObody can afford day care for that many kids. Womens rights people will run with this one too. Stay home be a baby machine and raise kids? Thats the only thing you could do if you had an un controled number of kids."

Hmmm. I am the oldest of seven. My mom is strong and healthy, in comparable health with the other ladies her age. (There may be people who need to limit family size for health reasons, but she was able to do it.) She takes delight in staying home and raising kids. My dad works for UPS, supporting us faithfully. It's not an enormous income, but enough for us. I don't think it takes millions to raise kids -- we know we'll have to put ourselves through college, and so far God has provided. Mama enjoys her teenagers and has raised them to be enjoyable young adults, and as a result does not fear the idea of being 60 when my youngest brother is 15. She is hoping that by the time "empty nest" comes, she'll have grandchildren.

The link between marriage, sex and procreation was created by God. We need to take this link very seriously as part of his purpose for the world, and as part of his purpose for our lives.

[23. Ashley said the following at 2:26 PM on Apr 28:]

23

Seriously, Ted? You're calling me out for not researching a statement that I put a question mark behind on a post on a blog? I very clearly was stating it as an assumption and not a factiod. :P Just because you disagree with me is no reason to jump all over me like I commited the unpardonable sin of the internetz. I had a moment of innaccurate recall; I didn't realize that appropriate links to scholarly articles were a prerequisite! You could have posted your rebuttal without getting snippy.

I was off by an order of magnitude - but I still think your number is a little low. Reuters said $291,570 per child in 2008 (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE57367220090804). Nevertheless, Raising a child is still expensive. Over 6 kids and even using your low number you're hitting over the million dollar mark -- Your definition of "A Whole Lot" and mine must be pretty different!

The crux of my argument remains: Having a large family, today, in the United States is burdensome for the PARENTS of the family (not society as a whole - except in those situations where they are having children as an excuse to get another welfare check). Sure, those parents might be happy as all get out, they might be thrilled to have seven+ kids... but it's still going to make their life/marriage/retirement harder than if they had one or two children. They've got to buy a bigger vehicle that gets worse gas mileage because they can't fit the kids in a minivan. They have to buy bigger homes, and more food on hand than families that only have a couple of kids. They have to budget more stringently. And there's the time thing: they don't have the time to attend all of Jimmy's soccer games because Suzy's got ballet practice. Dad has to work longer hours to make ends meet, and Mom can't be attentive to each child like she would be with a smaller bunch.

Did earlier generations make it work? Yeah! They Did! Earlier generations also didn't have to deal with a workforce where higher education is essentially mandatory, where kids are at risk for all kinds of mischeif and evil from the time they hit kindergarden, where even the best neighborhoods are still rediculous unsafe. Earlier generations also NEEDED the extra hands to help take care of the farm, to help make clothes and cook for the family and to do a lot of the menial tasks that modern convenience has eliminated.

The short version is: In today's world having a big family is HARD WORK. It's fine for people who want to live that way (Obviously, as I mentioned, the Duggars make it work) -- and assuming that they have the kind of affluent lifestyle that makes it possible for them, I say more power to them!

The emphasis here is, it's straight up bad stewardship to have kids you can't care for in excellence. The pill might have made it easier, but contraception is nothing new, and I would a million times rather that people only attempt to have babies they want to love and nurture than abort or abandon those that they don't.

My numbers may be faulty, but the logic is not.

[24. Danielle said the following at 2:28 PM on Apr 28:]

24

I just hate the stigma that comes with taking the Pill. I am not sexually active (in fact, I'm a virgin) and I take the Pill to avoid menstruating, which can take me out of commission for about 3 days because of severe cramps. I just can't function like that with work and school, so I take the Pill for that reason.

On the topic of preventing pregnancy, I agree with some of the other posters: the fact is that some people just can't afford a family like the Duggars.

[25. EKB said the following at 2:30 PM on Apr 28:]

25

I am really glad to see Evangelicals stepping back and questioning the morality of our contraceptive culture. I also think some posters here, such as Jeremiah (from Denver), are setting up false dichotomies about the issue. It is absolutely false that those of us against contraception think that sex is ONLY for procreation. We believe it must be both unitive and procreative, which of course includes pleasure and emotional intimacy.

Also, some Christians such as Catholics make distinctions between natural forms of birth control that space children out and contraception. Almost no one is advocating that Christians must have as many children as is physically possible.

Non-contracepting forms of family planning can have huge benefits. For instance, studies have shown that Catholics who use natural family planning (a Church-approved method to space kids) have a divorce rate of under 1% (and actually have more sex than couples using contraception). Obviously that's a self-selecting group, but that's huge in a culture where Christian divorce rates are usually no different from our secular counterparts. See the details yourself: http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=193

I linked to this article a few days ago, but I can't help but to provide it again because it is so relevant to the discussion. Boundless readers in particular will be interested to see how contraception has led to the devaluing of women and children, and makes marriages weaker.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/04/bitter-pill

[26. Jayme said the following at 2:42 PM on Apr 28:]

26

It's an issues that we (my fiance) and I discussed soon after we got engaged. Pre-engagement, we'd already had discussed whether we wanted children (yes), how many, general philosophy on birth (conception) control. So, we get engaged and it's time to discuss how to make our thoughts actual.

We're going to use Natural Family Planning - with some tweaking.
Both of us were against The Pill for abortificant reasons.
We're both older (30 and 34), so the strong desire to not have children isn't really there. We'd like to postpone conception for a year or so, if we can.
So, I'm charting stuff now to determine fertility windows so we know when to either 1) abstain, 2) use a barrier method or 3) do something creative.

NFP (the actual cirrculum) would tell you that your only option is to abstain when you'd consider yourself fertile. No other option but to abstain. We don't agree with that, but are using the education that NFP provides as knowing when conception is likely or possible to handle.

To be honest, for a while, I considered not having children. I'm already older (31 when we get married) and the odds of being able to have as many children as I'd want (4 or more please!) don't seem very likely without taxing my body. So, it seemed easier to not have kids. I realized that I was being selfish.

Being selfish seems (to me) to be the reason that The Pill was brought about...so people could say no to children. Say no now or forever.

My thoughts.

[27. Mark W said the following at 2:43 PM on Apr 28:]

27

I'm sorry, but I think there are too many logical fallacies in the argument against birth control.

For starters, the idea that using contraception gives you, in any way, the ability to "play God." To approximately quote Mark Driscoll, it's not like God is up in heaven going "Oh crap, latex! What am I gonna do now?" If God wants you to get pregnant, you will; contraception notwithstanding. As finite humans we do what we can to order biological realities to our desires. There are some areas where this is good (medical care that makes it possible for people with severe heart conditions to remain alive), bad (abortion), and ambiguous (birth control). But you cannot say that any attempt to resist/correct/redirect/etc. the "natural order" of things by "artificial means" is necessarily sinful or an attempt at playing God. Follow that line of thinking to its logical conclusion, and all medical procedures/care - in fact possibly all human action period - is an attempt at playing God. That is quite obviously absurd. You simply cannot say that birth control is trying to "play God" in some profoundly different way than say, reviving a person who has had a cardiac arrest. In all cases, God's sovereignty still overrules any of our feeble efforts; and the primary issue is not whether or not we are "interfering with God's plan" (we can't), but why are we taking this action and to what end.

Second, even if you accept the (IMHO ill-conceived) proposition that attempting to limit family size is trying to "play God" or sinfully refusing God's good gifts, than that necessarily rules out ANY form of contraception. If kids being a gift = you need to have as many as God wants to give you, then you better have sex all the time and not do anything that would in any way prevent having kids. And if you take the official Roman Catholic position (first stated by Augustine) that the primary and only legitimate purpose for sex is procreation, then you better not have sex AT ALL unless you're trying to get pregnant; as in that case, even natural planning is a sinful subversion/perversion of the "true" purpose of sex. Abstinence would be the only acceptable form of birth control, and women also can't have sex after menopause. Sterile/infertile people should never have sex either.

Third, it is absurdly anachronistic to say that the Church as a whole was against contraception prior to the 20th century. The only forms of contraception that existed prior to the 20th century were natural planning and generally ineffective and/or potentially dangerous barrier methods. That's about as relevant and makes about as much sense as saying that the church was against film prior to the 20th century.

Fourth, as others have said, if you're going to say that the pill has been responsible for increased fornication and adultery, please back that up. Even if that's true, does that make the pill inherently wrong and/or mean it can't be used for redeeming purposes? (Is it guns that are responsible for killing people?)

Fifth, to deny the economic realities of the time we live in is also absurdly anachronistic. In agrarian societies, more kids = more workers = more prosperity. In an industrialized society, more kids = more dependents (wonderful dependents that are gifts, but dependent nonetheless) = greater strain on family resources. Can people live with large families on modest (by industrialized Western standards) incomes? Yes. Does that mean that this is everyone's calling? If you're going to say yes to that, you better have good reasons to back it up. I'm not aware of any that can be applied en masse to the Church. (Also, who decides how big is big enough? If you say God, then you better not criticize a couple that has less than 3 kids as that could be what God desires for them.)

Finally, just because something is a gift doesn't mean that you MUST HAVE as much of it as you possibly can. Meaningful work is a gift. Time with family is a gift. The ability to study scripture is a gift. Financial prosperity is a gift. Food is a gift. Time with other believers is a gift. And on and on and on we could go. Sometimes we need to forego certain gifts in order to experience more of others. No one is exempt from making those kinds of choices in their lives. And no one has as much of any particular gift as they possibly could. Everyone needs to try to find a balance in their life.

I have a ton of respect for Dr. Mohler. I believe he's one of the most brilliant scholars currently living and the Church is fortunate to have him as a leader. I agree with 98% of his theology. But this is part of the 2% where I must strongly disagree. I simply cannot find a logically consistent Scriptural basis for categorically opposing birth control, or a particular form of it. I strongly believe that this is a conscience issue, and we commit the sin of religion/Pharisee-ism when we try to force our extra-Biblical conscience on others.

[28. Candice Watters said the following at 2:52 PM on Apr 28:]

28

Jeremiah wrote,

"That said, I believe that you would be hard pressed to say that this generation (that grew up with easy access to birth control) is engaged in any more or less fornication than during say during the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's."

Jeremiah, the pill was introduced in 1960. That's the point.

Josh, Dr. Mohler's post about oral contraceptives usage is here: http://www.albertmohler.com/2006/05/08/can-christians-use-birth-control/

Bri, congratulations on your upcoming marriage and thanks for dropping by! I wrote an article a while back about birth control and specifically, the Pill. It was in response to a young bride's questions. You can read it here: A Serious Question of Control

[29. Candice Watters said the following at 2:59 PM on Apr 28:]

29

Ultraviolet: Awesome question!

Michelle: Amazing comment!! You capture so beautifully the heart of the matter.

In answer to all of you wondering how the Boundless Team does or doesn't contracept, I can only speak for Steve and me, but am glad to do so. (We did so in even more detail in our book Start Your Family: Inspiration for Having Babies.)

We've practiced Natural Family Planning (NFP) from the start of our marriage (occasionally incorporating a barrier method during the months immediately after giving birth) and have so appreciated the way it relies on both husband and wife's involvement. NFP carries a host of benefits including fertility awareness and that's a big plus when you decide to start trying to get pregnant.

Interestingly, with 13 years of NFP as our primary, and most-of-the time exclusive form of "birth control," we have four children. Not 10. And certainly not 18. It's presumptuous of us to think that if we acknowledge that God opens and closes the womb that we know what He'll do. I was shocked to realize at age 33 that I was encountering secondary infertility. That's the age I would have thought we'd start trying to have babies. If an older couple hadn't challenged our plans, we may have been limited to 2 babies. What a tragedy that would have been!

I'm also in premature ovarian failure--early menopause--at age 39. I'd love to have another baby and hope God will work another miracle. I trust Him.

And that's really the point. Where will you put your trust?

[30. dans said the following at 3:01 PM on Apr 28:]

30

Dr. Mohler is, of course, completely wrong, on at least one point. His statement that "[t]he idea that sex would be severed from childbearing is a very modern concept — and a concept made meaningful only by the development of the Pill and its successor birth control technologies" is mind-bogglingly incorrect. While Wikipedia is not end-all be-all, in this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control is enough to prove my point. So that's one down.

That the Pill resulted in a lot more pre-marital (and during-marital, and post-marital) sex is undeniable. And, certainly, one can make a strong case for the Pill being a major contributor to ever-later marriages in western cultures. However, it is by no means the only contributor, and, frankly, were the Pill never developed the only real result would be a lot more sales for the condom manufacturers. Speaking from personal experience my last girlfriend did not use the Pill, the current one does. The only difference in our sexual behavior was that instead of having 100% safe sex with my current girlfriend, I had marginally less safe sex with my ex.

[31. Mickey said the following at 3:02 PM on Apr 28:]

31

Wow...thank God for Jacob (#14). All I see and hear here is me, myself and I.....what about what God wants?

If I use birth control when I get married, I pray that I will be honest enough to tell anyone who asks, that I am doing because I haven't yet reached the place where I can trust God with giving me and my husband the right number of children at the right time.

Most of us would rather live in denial than admit that.

I know of SEVERAL Christian couples who use no contraception and leave their family in God's hands and they have only 4 children.

Did not God make our bodies????? Can He not control our conception?

Are we willing to live the life God wants or do we value the fabulous life we'd prefer to live instead?

Isn't there a great benefit to raising godly offspring for God?

I wish we would be more honest with ourselves.

I, for one, pray that I will have the courage to have the family that God wants me to have....and that I would be blessed with a husband of like mind.

[32. IWishToRemainAnonymous said the following at 3:12 PM on Apr 28:]

32

Like some other posters here have mentioned, I too take oral contraceptives to treat the menstrual problems that literally governed my life when I was a teenager. No one in the real world gets a week off every month to suffer through their cycle; I did what I had to do to get through college and to work.

I am getting married soon and my fiance and I are now working out how we will use this once we get married. Basically I can't go off it until we really are ready to try to conceive - maybe in a year or so - and I don't really see the point in playing "let's pretend NFP" during that time.

I get kind of tired of hearing the same old arguments against oral contraceptives. The pill has not made me promiscuous or arrogant toward God, unless you consider taking medicine to alter the way my body works so that it works the way it's supposed to arrogance. Fallen world, folks. Bodies aren't perfect.

[33. Julie said the following at 3:19 PM on Apr 28:]

33

I agree with the person who said that if you're against birth control, you have to take that logic all the way. You have to be prepared to conceive on your wedding night, and you have to be be prepared to have as many babies that come until your fertility ends--this could mean a surprise baby in your mid-forties. For some people, they will take it this far. But for those who wouldn't, it's unfair to judge those of us who stop with 1, 2, or 3 kids, and who manage this through using birth control.

[34. Valerie said the following at 3:19 PM on Apr 28:]

34

I'm definitely at the party, celebrating. I'm on "the pill" and I'm a virgin.
As my (Christian) gynecologist said the birth control pill was misnamed, its hormonal control. And if I didn't take it for a medical condition (endometriosis) I could lose the ability to have children someday.

I wish people would educate themselves about this subject because the judgment from Christians hurts, especially when they don't know the facts.

[35. lola said the following at 3:20 PM on Apr 28:]

35

There are many "methods" available, the pill,IUD's, barrier methods, natural family planning...etc. I believe that the decision to use a method and which one should be between a husband, wife, and God. The only thing that I would advise is that couples should do their research about each method, so that they are fully informed, for example: some pills actually prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg and natural family planning may not work for someone with gynecologic problems (such as PCOS).
Oh and there is NO foolproof method other than abstinence...I have 3 women friends who had their tubes tied AND were on the pill who became pregnant (and in one case the husband had a vasectomy as well)...as my parents have always told me, "when you get married, no matter what you do, the chances of having babies goes waaay up"

[36. Julia H said the following at 3:21 PM on Apr 28:]

36

The Pill is a wonderful invention that has saved many women from unwanted pregnancies. I believe it has strengthened marriages by allowing couples to make love without worrying about having their 18th child. In addition, the Pill is a good regulator of hormones that has helped some women to conceive. It is also invaluable to women who suffer from endometriosis and who would be incapacitated by severe monthly bleeding and pain without it.

Like guns, the Pill isn't the problem, its the people who abuse it.

[37. Catherine said the following at 3:24 PM on Apr 28:]

37

While I understand Mohler's argument- I have changed my mind on this this year. I was very interested in natural family planning and decided to finally stop using the pill after quite a few years on it. that's when i discovered that i, like many women out there (and more and more every day due to obesity and eating disorders) have very irregular cycles (mine is due to polycystic ovarian syndrome- and no, i am not overweight- which affects about 6% of US women). NFP is VERY difficult if you have unpredictable cycles and can make your "safe" periods for marital intimacy extremely hard to predict. does that mean 1 in 10 couples should have to live with either quite a few more children than they would otherwise have or severely reduced intimacy in marriage?

the pill not only regulates your cycle in PCOS, but actually makes conception much more likely when you quit using it (due to better horomonal regulation). it also doesn't have the awkwardness of other methods of birth control. lets not forget that OCPs have many MANY uses outside of controlling reproduction. they are the first line treatment for menstrual irregularities, excessive bleeding (which can seriously harm a woman's health), severe premenstrual dysmorphic disorder, endometriosis and significantly reduce a woman's lifetime chances of having ovarian and endometrial cancer. don't throw the baby out with the bathwater :)

[38. Catherine said the following at 3:34 PM on Apr 28:]

38

I am sort of saddened by the total lack of knowledge in these comments about natural family planning though.. yes, you can control the number of children you have without contraception! it is, of course, much easier if you cycle regularly. I give to many friends- Christian and non-Christian- who are trying to conceive (but its great information on how to avoid conception also):

Taking Charge of Your Fertility by Toni Weschler

[39. Joel V said the following at 3:50 PM on Apr 28:]

39

I think Ashley (#1, 23) makes a good point about how hard and expensive it is to raise children in our day and age.

It is hard to have kids and maintain the affluent lifestyle that is the goal for most North Americans. Our standard of living just cannot support large families. Can you imagine not being able to afford a cottage or a house with a pool or a big screen TV?

I really believe that one of the underlying motivators for small families and therefore birth control is the lust of the flesh. Entertainment, pleasure and comfort is our god.

I have not come to a conclusion in my own mind to make a moral statement on contraception, but it is something I am convicted is at least wrong in most of our motives.

[40. Matthew said the following at 3:50 PM on Apr 28:]

40

Having read only the 1st few comments, (and planning to read the rest).. so yes children are a blessing and that is wonderful, yet what if you are consciously attempting to stop potential genetic disorders and choosing not to procreate? Say as example mental health and alcoholism issues are in your parents genetic line, and their parents and so on... and you find yourself showing signs...where does one stop the curse? Should we be mindful of this or ignore it? Should we then further the suffering of such an incredible choice to not have children and choose to be alone in the world and without companionship, love and partnership because intimacy's purpose is to procreate?

[41. Hannah C. O. said the following at 3:51 PM on Apr 28:]

41

I never believe the figures on how much it costs to raise a child. Part of this is my personal experience. (I come from a large family which was often poor.) Part of this is knowing that such figures are based on a standard of living which is not necessary or even necessarily *good.* Kids don't need high tech electronic gadgets or brand new clothes and not everyone needs their own room, for example. Nor does junk food need to be provided at will.

One of these days I may just have to do my own calculations on that..when I don't have life hounding me.

My husband is a waiter and I am a college student. If we were to get pregnant right now he could support us on what he makes, easily, without government aid. (Now we might have some trouble paying for prenatal care and delivery, but that's another story.) Granted he works in a business area, so the restaurant gets lots of business from the more affluent..but still. It isn't a super fancy restaurant or anything.

The one thing that really surprises and bugs me about popular opinion on having children is the selfishness I see in it. Adults get to decide when to have children or when not to, based on what is good for them. This is the view I see most often..and I believe it is fatally flawed. We are not in control of children. God is. We cannot conceive on demand any more than we can keep from conceiving on birth control. God is sovereign. In the end HE is the one in control of all of it, NOT us.

[42. Kay said the following at 3:56 PM on Apr 28:]

42

From my perspective, which is admittedly pretty unique, it is kind of disheartening to hear so much pill-bashing from fellow believers. I fought for many years AGAINST taking the pill, but finally caved because it seemed to be medically the only option left to explore for my severe dysmenorrhea and PMDD symptoms. For this reason, having a baby is somewhat more complicated for me and my husband. And that in itself is especially difficult for me, as I have desperately wanted to be a mother pretty much all my life. It's in God's hands, though!

To quote Jacob, #21: "The pill alters natural processes in a woman's body and that is going too far. I believe it is like tatooing or piercings. Scripture commands us not do so."

Actually, the so-called "natural" processes in MY body are pretty UNnatural, thus my need to take the pill to manage my symptoms. I'd like to see your Scriptural argument against that. But then again, I guess I'm just a godless heathen, what with my pierced ears and all! ;)

[43. Ted Slater said the following at 4:05 PM on Apr 28:]

43

Um. I don't think anyone at Boundless or Focus on the Family is against birth control outright. And to my knowledge we've never said that its use has us "playing God."

We're simply pointing out that its prevalence has affected our thoughts on conception and children in profound ways. And maybe we'd benefit by pondering what those effects on our thinking might be.

I think it's safe to say that most of us here agree with John Piper, who has written:

The Bible nowhere forbids birth control, either explicitly or implicitly, and we should not add universal rules that are not in Scripture.... What is important is our attitude in using it. Any attitude which fails to see that children are a good gift from the Lord is wrong.

So maybe stop characterizing Boundless as being adamantly against birth control options such as The Pill, NFP, barriers, or spermicides. There are deeper issues to explore here.

[44. Julia H said the following at 4:16 PM on Apr 28:]

44

According to the scriptures, NFP may actually be sinful.

"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control" (1 Cor. 7: 3-5).

I would rather use birth control (that is not addressed in Scripture) than sinfully deprive my husband to limit the size of my family.

[45. Mark W said the following at 4:20 PM on Apr 28:]

45

I intimated this in my previous comment, but I want to reiterate it a bit more bluntly this time. I do not understand how people such as Candice (#29) and Mickey (#31) can imply that people only use the pill because they distrust God. And yet both of you seem to be totally OK w/ NFP. Tell me, what makes NFP superior to the pill? Whether you like it or not, both are attempts to control (or "plan" if you prefer) the number of children one has. In either case, GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL. I understand the arguments about not doing something artificial to your body, but please tell me how someone has more trust in God if they try to control their number of children through not having sex when fertile as opposed to taking a pill. In either case, YOU ARE STILL TRYING TO CONTROL HOW MANY CHILDREN YOU HAVE. One does not have more or less faith because they prefer a particular method of contraception. To imply so reeks of spiritual superiority and judgementalism.

Also, since you linked to Dr. Mohler, here's a link to Desiring God.

[46. Jo said the following at 4:26 PM on Apr 28:]

46

Mark W, 28, great comment.

I really think birth control (in general) is a personal matter between a couple and God. No room for judgment or condemnation on either side. There are all kinds of reasons why a couple might want to try and limit the size of their family or avoid conceiving altogether. I personally think birth control is completely acceptable as long as it is used with an attitude of, "We are not all-knowing and we are not ultimately in control, so if God decides to override our human wisdom and give us a child, we will accept His will and consider it a gift".

This is a difficult issue for me, because my health issues *may* mean that avoiding pregnancy could end up being the safest option (if pregnancy would be dangerous) and the least selfish option (if I wasn't well enough to care properly for a child). I *really* want to be a mother so I *really* hope this will not be my fate. If it is, then barring divine guidance in another direction, I will follow medical advice to try and prevent pregnancy, and at the same time I will pray for God to overrule, work a miracle and bless me with a baby. If those two things sound contradictory, be glad you don't have to live in the grey areas like this one.

As for the pill specifically, I think its possible/arguable abortive function is worth discussing from a Christian point of view. But that's a separate issue from many of those raised here, which apply to all methods of birth control equally - even in most cases NFP, as Mark W pointed out.

[47. young adult said the following at 4:30 PM on Apr 28:]

47

My parents never used birth control, and they only had two kids. They were married for four years before I was born, then for another four years before my only sibling came along.

[48. Annika said the following at 4:34 PM on Apr 28:]

48

So, what I seem to be hearing from the anti-pill people is that the pill is bad, but barrier methods and NFP are OK? Where did God say that?

I'm engaged, I'm on the pill for medical reasons, as other posters have mentioned, and I have every intention of staying on it for 3-5 years until we plan to have children. I'm 22, have a master's degree and I'm working on my PhD, and my fiance is in seminary, and we don't want kids 'til we're both out of school. I don't see how NFP or condoms would be "more God-ordained" than taking the pill those 5 years!

And yes, the pill (and condoms, which have been around for a REALLY long time) enable sex outside of marriage without children. It's a fallen world, and people are evil. The pill is not.

[49. Nicole said the following at 4:59 PM on Apr 28:]

49

whoa there! While I don't entirely disagree, This seems be pretty harsh. Birth control can be used responsibly, there are other practical uses for it besides preventing pregnancy. Also not everyone feels the same about abortion or shares the same morality and frankly I would rather see a woman prevent a baby than destroy one.

[50. Bridget said the following at 5:38 PM on Apr 28:]

50

I volunteer! I would love to have a super large family!

Now if I could only find a husband...

Seriously, folks, even here on a Christian site our attitude is a little skewed; I see post after post complaining about the burden of children, and those posts that are kid positive have only a vague "children are a blessing" message. If you do beleive those avoiding children are doing this for selfish reasons, you might consider the following (and encourage those people to do so also!)

According to US Census Bureau stats (which are a little out of date, sorry) The average high school graduate will earn about 1.2 Million dollars over the course of his or her life. Children are one of the best investments ever if you're wanting to help your country and society.

If you have children, you don't need a big screen TV; they're more entertaining and encourage healthful excercise as a bonus.

My grandparents had eight children. Because those children are here and care, my grandparents have been able to stay in their own home despite severe diabetes and Alzheimers without having to rely on strangers' care.

My mom has had a superfluity of well trained in house massage therapists for thirty years.

Hmmm... maybe I only WANT children for selfish reasons.

[51. EKB said the following at 5:39 PM on Apr 28:]

51

Julia H,

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that NFP requires "sinfully depriving" your spouse. I would assume that Christian married couples abstain from sexual relations at times for reasons such as illness, old age, recovery from childbirth, being separated due to business travel, etc. None of these are directly addressed in the Bible, but I can't imagine you would consider any of them sinful. I think that verse is addressing the issue of people who refuse intimacy with their spouse for selfish reasons, which is not at all what NFP is about. Rather, the couple is supposed to mutually agree about whether or not it is a good time to conceive, and abstain during the time the wife is thought to be fertile if necessary. The principle is supposed to be that the default is being open to life, and so the sacrifice of abstaining should only be used for good reason.

I am not married and so have never practiced NFP personally, but from what I understand, the amount of abstinence involved is somewhere around a week per cycle. Given that the study I linked to earlier showed NFP practicing couples have sex more often than those using contraception, I don't think it makes much sense to object to NFP for this reason.

I also wanted to mention to the women using the pill for medical reasons that those of us against contraception generally see no moral problem with that. I apologize if you feel judged in this discussion, as your situation is completely different and unrelated.

[52. Melissa S. said the following at 6:33 PM on Apr 28:]

52

Ashley #23,

If you had a moment of inaccurate recall and knew it, but couldn't use the internet to correct that, why is it a problem for someone else to do so? What is the value in contributing the product of a moment of inaccurate recall to the discussion? I thought the number sounded off but scrolled down to find that someone else had already mentioned it.

You mentioned that, "In today's world, having a family is hard work."

I don't know who would argue with that statement. Of course having children is hard work. But how about just, "having a family is hard work"? Having a child, period, is always harder than not having any children. It's always been hard and will always be hard. But, seriously, how is having lots of children in today's world harder than in the past? If anything, it seems that it would be easier for millions of people because of the the technological advances we have.

You don't always have to buy more and bigger when you have a larger family. (Obviously some of that is unavoidable.)My family of ten lived in a small home for 16 years. The four boys shared a small room and the four girls shared a small room. Yes, it was cramped, but I'm sure we had more room and material wealth than most of the rest of large families around the world enjoy.

And, a major point, a lot of parents aren't really there taking care of their kids like the parents on farms you mentioned. They drop them off at school and day care and others raise their children for them. They miss out on a lot of emotional and physical exhaustion that way. They also miss out on the joy of raising their own children. They set themselves up for a lonely old age.

"The emphasis here is, it's straight up bad stewardship to have kids you can't care for in excellence."

What is "in excellence"?

"My numbers may be faulty, but the logic is not."

Your emphasis that people should have good stewardship when having children is a point well taken. I just don't see how raising kids in today's world can possibly be a bigger burden than it used to be.

[53. Michelle (of Kansas) said the following at 6:41 PM on Apr 28:]

53

One would think that the Pill would move generations to marrying younger than they are now (on average). A lot of couples (both Christian and non-Christian) will make the excuse of not getting married because they don't have the money. And kids cost money. The Pill creates an environment where sex can be enjoyed without a high risk of getting pregnant.

Just a thought...

[54. Nathan (one of Dr. Mohler's Students) said the following at 6:43 PM on Apr 28:]

54

I think the point that Dr. Mohler is trying to make is that contraceptive use is an issue that we need to discuss seriously, as Christians, and not just ignore.

I know from his lectures and preaching that Dr. Mohler is not completely opposed to birth control, and does not believe that procreation is the only purpose of sex. But it is a purpose of sex, and should not be forever severed from it.

[55. dcresident said the following at 6:55 PM on Apr 28:]

55

Dr. Mohler says: "I do indeed believe that the development of the Pill 'has done more to reorder human life than any event since Adam and Eve ate the apple.'”

Um, what about the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Sounds like he needs to take a step back and see the big picture for a moment if you ask me.

[56. sandra pooh said the following at 8:04 PM on Apr 28:]

56

i have never felt the desire to have kids. so we'll probably use the pill for 30 more years.

the bible never hints birth control is wrong, so i feel good about it.

if regulating the number of kids you have is wrong, then everyone should be like the duggars (19 kids). there's no middle ground.

[57. JenFromMA said the following at 8:08 PM on Apr 28:]

57

At the rest of changing the subject entirely, I can't ignore the fact that apparently, having kids seems to damage the marital relationship a little bit. Is this true? I'm still single and want to be married/have children, but that has bothered me for a while.

[58. Mary said the following at 8:48 PM on Apr 28:]

58

The main problem that I have with birth control is that it can cause abortion. That's not the primary way it works (by preventing the sperm from even meeting the egg). But if that doesn't work, one of the thing it does is that it makes the lining in the uterus inhospitable for the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. I don't know the exact science behind, but that's the basics. So if you believe life starts from the moment of conception (when the egg is fertilized), then anything that could stop the fertilized egg from surviving and thriving is abortion. So I suppose you could take the risk that the pill would prevent the egg from being fertilized in the first place, but that's like closing your eyes and start firing a loaded gun aimlessly. Sure, you may not hit someone, but why even try. And, fyi, I didn't get the information about the pill makes it difficult for the fertilized egg to implant just from pro-life websites. I got them from secular websites like planned parenthood and other such sites.
As for the argument that if you don't take birth control pills, you're going to have lots of babies---that's a black and white type of thinking. We're scientifically advanced enough that we know that a woman is not always fertile, and that babies don't get made everytime a couple has sex. Just abstain during those times when the woman is fertile.
That can be done by keeping track of the cycle, checking the body temperature, and checking the cervical mucus. This method may not work as well as other chemical methods, but it can't cause abortion either.

[59. MarkS said the following at 9:24 PM on Apr 28:]

59

So the pill is preferable to alternatives, as some seem to think?

Like Jeremiah (2) points out, people have been people as long as there has been people. Shotgun weddings and the ill-matched mates they produced probably caused an increase in domestic violence and child abuse, although not infidelity. So in that way the pill might actually reduce social ills by reducing the # of bad marriages?

Given that some are going to "do it" regardless, is the pill preferable to abortion?

Now within good Christian marriages, we trust God for all things but also use the brains he's given us. So given that sex is a blessing and not to be abstained from, do we use our technology as an implement of Providence or stick to blind faith. I didn't know how to word that, I am comparing it to jumping in front of a bus or using God's brains to stay on the sidewalk. So can a couple exercise B.C. in any form, from drugs to methods, or is that just a lack of faith (that God will provide for any children He provides)?

Then to the image we present. Does any avoidance of the blessing of children hurt our position on the sanctity of life?

[60. Louise said the following at 10:22 PM on Apr 28:]

60

Julie - I had been thinking of that exact point for most of the way down the column.

To quote Jacob, #21: "The pill alters natural processes in a woman's body and that is going too far. I believe it is like tatooing or piercings. Scripture commands us not do so."

Does this mean Jacob that you are against all medications? After all thyroxine for hypothyroidism is altering the function of your body as are insulin sensitisers used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Should we just accept that God has let us have a particular medical condition and not accept the treatment which is available?

There are a few points I would like to make about the Pill:
1 - Most forms of the Pill work by preventing ovulation - hence they are not aborfacient.
2 - As other people have said the Pill is used in the management of a number of gynaecological disorders and significantly improves the lives of women with these disorders
3 - If the pint is that Birth Control is bad then this would included all forms of contraception, including the highly ineffective natural methods.
4 - Couples may be totally open to having children but using the common sense God gave them realise that now is not a wise (for whatever reason - financial, personal, health) time to have children. So having a method which still allows the couple to enjoy each other in marriage while not having to worry about whether the wife will fall pregnant. eg there are numbers of medications which it is considered too dangerous to be taking while pregnant as they result in significant birth defects.
5 - While we should trust God that He will provided children at the right time I think that He also expects us to use the resourses He has given us (after all where did the intellignce to make medications come from?) wisely and not expect Him to fix up all our messes.
6 - While there were temple prostitutes in Bible times this was only a small portion of the population. For most of history women have stayed virgins until marriage, not so much from a conviction that this is the right thing to do, but from a fear of the consequences that a baby outside marriage would cause them. Men, not having this fear, considered themselves free to have sex, hence the need for prostitutes. The Pill & the sexual revolution conicided because one let women have sex without fear of babies and the other let them have sex without fear of loss of reputation. It is unlikely that the sexual revolution would have been so 'successful' if the Pill had not been invented at the same time.

[61. Carol said the following at 10:30 PM on Apr 28:]

61

Oh wow. Do people really think that if you don't use chemical birth control you will have 18 children? Seriously, folks. My parents used NFP and had 8 children. My sisters have used NFP and have each had only two children (Both married 5-6 years now). I can't speak for my mother, but I know that my sisters did not get pregnant on NFP until they were ready to. They didn't need the Pill. The thing about NFP is that it only works well in committed monogamous relationships, thus "hooking up" cannot occur.

And sure, my parents don't have a lot of money, but they do have children who love and respect them. And we are ready to take care of them in their old age, if necessary. Aren't responsible, loving children better than money in the bank?

Maybe if we stopped treating children like unwanted pests, we could actually make them into something other than hedonistic thugs.

[62. Julie said the following at 10:49 PM on Apr 28:]

62

I guess I don't understand NFP--if couples are trying to prevent pregnancy by abstaining during the time of ovulation, how is that really different from using the pill? In terms of really leaving it in God's hands--why not just do nothing at all for birth control purposes?

[63. Simon from Texas said the following at 12:12 AM on Apr 29:]

63

In the article provided by Ted, Piper actually covers a lot of the nuances and fallacies that people have pointed out in their comments. It's definitely worth a read.

[64. Louise from Chicago said the following at 7:42 AM on Apr 29:]

64

Comment 39, if you had only been able to conceive and bear TWO CHILDREN, that would have been a "tragedy?"

There are infertile people out there who would be jumping proverbial cartwheels at the prospect of one successful pregnancy!

And comment 43, oh where oh where would anyone get the idea that the Boundless editors are against birth control, gee whiz, maybe you should read some of the articles and posts.

[65. Sara said the following at 7:57 AM on Apr 29:]

65

Isn't natural family planning (NFP) just another form of birth control? I've never understood the distinction. If you're doing anything to allow you to have sex without getting pregnant- be it the pill, a barrier method or NFP you are practicing birth control. You are not allowing for children to result from every/any sex act.

[66. Ashley said the following at 8:16 AM on Apr 29:]

66

Hannah said: Adults get to decide when to have children or when not to, based on what is good for them.

Right now, at this very moment in time, I'm deciding not to have children by abstaining from sex until after I'm married. Now, that's partially because it's honoring to God, partially because it's what's most beneficial for the child in the long run, and partially because a baby would be a massive disruption to my life. It is NOT GOOD for me to have a baby right now. Does that make my decision wrong?

In addition, Adults DON'T always get to decide when to have children whether their on the pill or not. There are accidental babies for families on NFP (my Bestie practiced NFP and has not one but TWO oops babies (and no income)). There are accidental babies on the pill. There are also issues of sterility. People try for years to have children but can't.

The problem with saying "You're planning your children so you're SELFISH" is that you're also not wholistically looking at how their decision and timing impacts the welfare of the child. Again, it is irresponsible to have a baby you cannot excellently care for (See Exhibit A: Nadia Suleman). I would argue that it was extremely selfish (and tragic!) of her to have eight children she can't afford and can't care for all at the same time just so she could "feel more loved".

The fact of the matter is that children, whether you have 2 or 20 ARE blessings to be enjoyed, cared for, loved and nurtured. and you HAVE to take into account your own capabilities as a parent - for THEIR benefit. Can you really raise up seven kids in the way that they should go? Do you WANT your babies to raise your babies? Those are important questions! Whether you're practiving NFP, or pharmecutical birth control, you're limiting the amount of children you're having. The idea that we're preordained to have some certain number of kids, that only God can determine, to me, seems more like fatalism than trusting God. God gave you a brain. Use it to make smart choices.

[67. Jayme said the following at 8:45 AM on Apr 29:]

67

Catherine->
I have a severe form of PCOS as well, not treatable by the usual methods (Metformin, Glucophage, diet, exercise) and I too am thin. Not uber thin, but not over weight and NFP works just fine.

The premise of NFP is that PCOS doesn't overwhelm it. Your temperatures are your temperatures. Other body signs are the same. Yes, it means that I consider myself in Phase II longer than someone who is completely regular, but it doesn't mean that I have no clue when (or if I'm ovulating). In fact, I am such a huge fan of what I've learned from NFP that I wish I would've done it years ago (the charting part of it, that is) to help my OB/GYN know what is really going on.

In fact, with PCOS women, you're more likely to be infertile (not ovulating), allowing for more days of intimacy - as long as you know how to read the signs.

All:
No one is disputing what The Pill (or other hormones) can do for women...but we're talking about what The Pill has done to sex within marriage. No one is saying all hormones are bad all the time.

[68. Jayme said the following at 8:49 AM on Apr 29:]

68

Julia->
I've never understood that argument.

If you're using NFP and you both (as a husband and wife) agree to abstain, then it can't be sinful.

That's like saying it would sinful to abstain right after you had a baby - if you aren't praying, then it's a sin. Or to abstain while one is battling cancer. If you both agree to abstain (for the right reasons), then it's not sinful. If your reason is to fight cancer or recover from birth or to prevent a pregnancy, then you're okay. It's NOT okay for one partner to routinely shut out the other. That's the argument that Paul is laying out.

I also don't think you have to take all or nothing of what the actual NFP document says. They'd say you have to abstain while you're fertile. No, it just means there might be certain restrictions placed upon you. It shouldn't mean all-or-nothing.

[69. M.R. said the following at 9:25 AM on Apr 29:]

69

lol. Hasn't anyone on here heard of Natural Family Planning? And no, it's not the Rhythm Method. It's taught in Catholic Marriage courses. My mom used it in Communist Poland, for heaven's sake! Me, my sister, and my brother are spaced three years apart like clockwork. I even remember her having a little calendar with little "baby" stickers on days where she was most fertile. Why, in this day and age of scientific knowledge, do people go to extremes of "you're not using birth control, therefore you want to be like the Duggars"? Do you know actually how hard that is to achieve for most women - even if they really wanted to?

Chemical birth control overrides a women's natural chemical makeup. It increases risk of cancer because of the high estrogen levels women are constantly exposed to while on the pill, because their bodies think they're pregnant the whole time. And then, after eight years on the pill when they finally WANT to get pregnant, they wonder why it's so darn hard to do so. Hence the huge artifical baby-making industry, which edges us ever-closer to a Brave New World.

(more fun facts: the pill decreases women's sexual drive and decreases muscle mass, making them more prone to obesity and osteoperosis. They body knows what it knows - and we're running roughshod over all its wisdom!)

[70. Mark W said the following at 9:41 AM on Apr 29:]

70

EKB #51,

"I also wanted to mention to the women using the pill for medical reasons that those of us against contraception generally see no moral problem with that."

If you're for NFP then you're not against contraception.

[71. Jayme said the following at 9:45 AM on Apr 29:]

71

Julie ->
Some people believe that The Pill doesn't just prevent conception, but in case conception occurs, then it prevents the egg from implanting. Some consider that abortion.

If you don't believe The Pill works that way, then I don't see a difference between The Pill and NFP.

See here: http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/prolife_birth_control_pill/A_Longer_Condensation_of_Does_The_Birth_Control_Pill_Cause_Abortions.shtml

[72. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:04 AM on Apr 29:]

72

Rhythm method is great: it keeps the babies spaced about 15 months apart.

[73. Beth said the following at 10:05 AM on Apr 29:]

73

I'm on the Pill (well in derivative form), and can honestly say my problems with this method have not been moral. I agree with the other posts - God is ultimately in control of when my husband and I will conceive, and I see obsolutely no difference in (NFP) life vs. hormonal adjustments. God can send an 'opps' baby along to either category, although both are clearly making an effort to avoid pregnancy.

My issues with the Pill have been the adverse side effects. My libido is non-existent, lower back pain, nausea, dizziness...In this case I see where NFP becomes the most viable option. So, I'm not opposed to birth control in any form, but think the method can depend on what side-effects are experienced by the user. Especially in the case of libido - where there is more than a touch of irony considering the pill decreases sexual appetite...thereby doubly protecting against an unplanned pregnancy.

[74. Hannah C. O. said the following at 10:40 AM on Apr 29:]

74

Ashley (#67):

I think you may have misunderstood my comments. I also think I was not clear enough in my explanation!

I was not trying to say that anyone who wants to plan their family is wrong. The examples you gave are not selfish, but wise. Another example of this is that it would be irresponsible for my husband and I to try and have a baby right now.

You also gave examples which proved my other point: that God can and will override our planning if He sees fit! This is also where my belief comes from that you will NOT have a child unless He wants you to. It is more than fatalism: it is the way I see the world working. The only sure way to not have a child is to not have sex.

Also, being able to "care for a child excellently" has different interpretations. I helped care for my younger siblings and I do not see that as negative in any way! Nor do I think parents are obligated to pay for their children's college education (though if they have the ability and the wish to do so it is a wonderful thing).

The people I was thinking of are those who are married, have resources, and decide against children for reasons which have to do entirely with themselves. Or those people in similar circumstances who have an "oops" baby, grit their teeth and bear it, and leave their child with the impression that they were not wanted.

Children are precious human beings, not pawns of adults. They aren't pets, they are their own people. I think some, perhaps a lot, of adults miss this. And it disturbs me.

Or perhaps at almost 21 years old I am simply too close to the uncomfortableness of childhood.

[75. Julie said the following at 10:40 AM on Apr 29:]

75

Jayme, 71:

Yes, I can see there are differences, and advantages to NFP because it is more natural, etc.

The issue is that it is a way to try to control the timing of pregnancy. Which seems inconsistent with the idea that God is totally in control of opening or closing the womb and we shoud not interfere with that.

[76. Mickey said the following at 10:43 AM on Apr 29:]

76

Mark (#45), I agree 100% with your point. The couples to which I referred do not use natural methods of contraception...

On another note, before I became born-again, I took the pill because my doctors thought it the only solution to my awful dismennorhea (cramps, throwing up etc.)

After I gave my life to the Lord, I decided that if I believe the Bible, then I must believe that Jesus can heal my body and deliver me from that. So I stopped taking it...and now (up to 4 years later) I experience NONE of those symptoms AND my monthly cycle is more regular than before!

The idea is not to judge but to remember that God said, "be it unto you according to your faith."

Also, "let each man be fully persuaded in his own mind"

And "whatsoever is not of faith is sin." As a minister at my church always says, "When in doubt, leave it out!" If you don't have a clear conscience in taking the pill, then you need to consider why and go to God in prayer.

Let's always be in a place of heart where God can tell us even the opposite of what we want to hear and we quickly obey.

My advice to anyone is not to stop taking the pill but to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.

[77. Benjamin said the following at 10:44 AM on Apr 29:]

77

"... the pill decreases women's sexual drive" (comment #69)

"... considering the pill decreases sexual appetite" (comment #73)

It is a fairly common misconception that the pill necessarily causes a decrease in sex drive -- certain pills do for certain women (generally the more Progesterone-heavy pills). But if you are experiencing a lack of sex drive after going on the pill, for the sake of both you and your husband, talk to your doctor. It is very possible that you can find a different pill that does not cause this problem.

As for the issue of the pill causing abortions (brought up in comment #71), I believe there was a topic about that on this site a while back. The pill can indeed cause the death of a conceived embryo, and it always seemed to me that no matter how likely or unlikely this is, if one believes the soul is present at conception, one must be opposed to the BCP. However, most Christians' position seems to boil down to "I think it is probably unlikely, so I am not going to worry about it." Or, perhaps even more commonly, "I'm not going to think about it."

[78. Hannah C. O. said the following at 10:45 AM on Apr 29:]

78

About hormonal birth control itself:

Some women have hormonal problems, and the Pill helps correct those problems. If I was one of those women, I would gladly use the Pill! It is serving the medicinal purpose of returning body chemistry to the state it should be in.

Other women's hormones work like they should. I am one of these women. When I take the Pill, it causes hormonal problems in the form of depression. I do not want to take the Pill. If my hormones work on their own then I do not want to make them work abnormally. This is the core reason why I do not take the Pill.

[79. Jennifer said the following at 11:01 AM on Apr 29:]

79

Thanks Candice and others for sharing your stories on use of NFP. It is amazing to learn of the way God made us and the beautiful communication and love that can come from accepting what God has for you in terms of children and family. A total self giving to your spouse including your fertility is beautiful and yes at times sacrificial.

[80. Ashley said the following at 11:19 AM on Apr 29:]

80

Melissa:

If you had a moment of inaccurate recall and knew it, but couldn't use the internet to correct that, why is it a problem for someone else to do so? What is the value in contributing the product of a moment of inaccurate recall to the discussion? I thought the number sounded off but scrolled down to find that someone else had already mentioned it.

You read my second post, so you should know my issue was not with the correction, but with the snippyness. Disagreement on an issue is no reason to be snide. A simple, "Hey, I don't think your number is right, Google said XYZ" would have been appropriate. "C'mon, you've got the internet, too, how hard is to to do some research? Oh I'll condescend to do it for you." was not.

Melissa, you also said this: "And, a major point, a lot of parents aren't really there taking care of their kids like the parents on farms you mentioned. They drop them off at school and day care and others raise their children for them. They miss out on a lot of emotional and physical exhaustion that way. They also miss out on the joy of raising their own children. They set themselves up for a lonely old age."

I couldn't agree more! And if you're having MORE kids which you're dropping off at daycare, how is that better than having less that you're already not bonding with? If you're going to miss a lot of time spent with just two or three children -- you can make that time up on evenings and weekends, spending a lot of time being attentive to each child. If you're working a nine-to-five with seven+ You're not going to have time to one-on-one with each of the kids even if you assign them a rotational day of the week!

I would say that taking care of your kids "in excellence" is something that is between each set of parents and God. If you think it is excellent that you have four kids to a room and you're confident that you can show each of them the love and individual attention they require and raise them up to be strong in the Lord... have four kids to a room.

Nevertheless, I think that anyone saying that it ISN'T harder to raise a large family in today's world is being stubbornly naive. "It worked for us!" is a microcosm. Even if you homeschool, you're going to have to teach multiple grades at a time, keep up with all the kid's school work individually, track each of their progresses. If you don't, then you've got to juggle all the sporting events, parent-teacher conferences, not to mention homework that gets increasingly bizzare as the public school system goes on... And that's assuming you don't have any kids that require extra attention like a special needs baby or a problem child. You can't just show a kid how to use a plow, or shoot a gun, or sew a dress anymore and know that it's going to make a life for them. You could do that 100, maybe even 50 years ago, but now to make it in the west you've got to have an education and that takes time, money, attention and parental dedication (Whatever the public school system is selling you).

Are we, in general, better off than the rest of the world economically? You bet! Is that a reason to drive ourselves into poverty with children we can't afford? Is it good for your children to position them at a disadvantage to their peers because you lack the time, resources or money to be able to give them the individual attention they need to succeed?

You are in the West, and you've got to grow where you're planted (unless you uproot and move somewhere else). The culture we live in is the culture we live in. You can raise your kids to honor God to the best of your ability by making wise decisions to help them be a witness to that culture. If you feel like that means you need to have a big family, and you've done what it takes to be able to raise them up to be excellent examples to their generation of what Christ-followers should look like, by all means, do it, but don't assume it makes you holier than somebody who doesn't choose to live that way.

If you DON'T feel you need to have a big family, or you don't have the ability or cash to care for a lot of kids, then use your brain and nurture and be thankful for the children you have.

[81. EKB said the following at 11:39 AM on Apr 29:]

81

Mark W (70) and others who think NFP and contraception are the same thing,

First, I'm not out to condemn those who feel differently about this issue, but I don't think Christianity as a whole has done a good job of encouraging people to think critically about our contraceptive culture. From the comments I'm seeing, I think people on the pro-contraception side have some misconceptions about what the other side believes. I hesitate to get into the specifics here because this is such a divisive issue and difficult to explain succinctly, but I will try.

The issue is not that NFP is "natural" and contraceptives are "unnatural." Rather, some of us are against contraception because we believe that God designed reproduction to be intrinsically connected to sex for a reason. With contraception, the couple chooses to participate in the pleasurable aspect of sex while at the same time directly inhibiting and rejecting the life-giving aspect. With NFP, the couple prayerfully discerns whether or not it is a good time to welcome a child, and if necessary abstains from sex while the wife is fertile. The unitive and procreative aspects are not separated.

It is not a perfect analogy, but here is another way to look at it. The pleasure of eating and the nutritional effects of digestion are also intrinsically connected. It is sickness and/or gluttony to eat a bunch of junk food for the pleasure of it and then vomit it up to avoid the consequences. There is an enormous difference between choosing to avoid eating something until you are ready to accept the calories and nutrients and being bulimic.

[82. Annika said the following at 11:44 AM on Apr 29:]

82

"Chemical birth control overrides a women's natural chemical makeup. It increases risk of cancer because of the high estrogen levels women are constantly exposed to while on the pill..."

Again, some fact-checking could help people out. The pill, as used today, has very low doses of estrogen, and for the most part reduces the risk of a variety of cancers. The only cancer risk that is increased is breast cancer, and this risk recedes when you stop taking the pill.

(Historically, the pill contained a great deal more estrogen than it does now, and this did pose a higher risk of cancers. However, this was 20-30 years ago.)

~Annia (Biology PhD student and contraceptive user)

[83. JB said the following at 11:58 AM on Apr 29:]

83

MR #69,

Your comments about the health effects of hormonal birth control are incorrect and dangerous.

Cancer and hormonal contraception has been an area of controversy and research for quite some time. The best data currently is that hormonal contraception decreases the risk of ovarian, uterine, and perhaps colorectal cancer. The risk of breast cancer in current and recent past users of hormonal contraception may be slightly increased BEFORE THE AGE OF 35. Breast cancer is very rare in these women, so the risk of breast cancer may increase from a baseline of about 10 in 10,000 to roughly 12.5 in 10,000. These cancers are usually detected early. There is NO INCREASED RISK for breast cancer after the age of 35 in current or former users. There is no evidence for an increased lifetime risk of breast cancer.

New evidence from the UK indicates that having ever taken oral contraceptives may correlate with decreased all-cause mortality and decreased cancer mortality.

That being said, the use of any medication will come with both risks and benefits. In particular, women who take hormonal contraception (and, really, everyone else) should not smoke. Women who are interested in hormonal contraception should discuss the issue in detail with their doctor, not some people on the internet.

[84. JB said the following at 12:08 PM on Apr 29:]

84

Mary #58,

I think an interesting thing about your argument is that, even if you believe that the prevention of embryo implantation is one of the mechanisms by which hormonal contraception works (and I think this is unlikely with most products), one need not hold this to be abortion. It's entirely consistent (biblically, scientifically, philosophically) to be pro-life and to believe that life begins at implantation, or when blood forms, or when the heart beats, or when the mother begins to feel movement. It is not the case that to be pro-life one has to believe that life begins at conception. That's a relatively recent innovation and I'm not sure that it's warranted.

[85. Jo said the following at 12:31 PM on Apr 29:]

85

Ted, thanks for the link to Desiring God. I think that article puts it very well indeed.

[86. Kelly-1 said the following at 12:37 PM on Apr 29:]

86

I'm 32 and have never been on the Pill. This is for a couple of reasons:

(1) I don't like the idea of changing my natural body rhythms

(2) Should I ever be blessed enough to get married, I don't want to have done ANYTHING that could cause problems

(3) If I'm in a dating relationship, it adds weight to the consequences of sin

i.e. By KNOWING that I could get pregnant (no birth control method is 100% effective), it makes the decision to sleep with someone even more grave. It's yet another weapon in helping me fight temptation. And praise God, it has worked in my life.

---

It's been quite interesting when I travel with non-Christian girls and we cross time zones. They've all been fussing over what time to take their pill and can't quite believe it when I tell them that I'm not on it!

[87. Marian said the following at 12:45 PM on Apr 29:]

87

Wow, before people line up to defend the Pill, what about reading its methods of action as they are listed in the Physicians Desk Reference or in the very, very fine print not used in promotional materials for patients? It's abortifacient, folks. That alone should remove it as a birth control method for practicing Christians.

BTW, its abortifacient action may also negatively affect your fertility when you feel like you want to turn it back "on".

It's also amazing to see how little ingenuity people see in God's design, which is for sex within marriage. No, He did not design it for humans to be solely for procreation (as evidenced by the fact that women are not fertile all the time and for all seasons of life). No one is really saying that. An example of this genius in His creation is how breastfeeding -- giving babies, hands down, the best nutrition, amongst other things -- spaces children. Women in non-Western countries, like my grandmother, weren't exactly having a baby a year (like the Duggers?), even if they did get pregnant a lot (they lost many babies, and started much earlier than we do here). They breastfeed their kids. I'm not talking about occasional breastfeeding. Even after menstruation resumes, it can take *months* for full-fledged fertility to resume. There is much written about this online for those intersted. If I was in my 20s, I'd be content to celebrate this God-given spacing, but I'm not...and it's working a little too well...my daughter is 19 months old and has been weaned three and a half months ago, and still no pregnancy....God designed our bodies to take some time to recuperate. Of course not everyone will go 15.5 months without a period post-partum, but there can be factors that play into that...diet, weight loss, missed feedings, medication...but the design as planned by God without these factors is meant to work.

I completely agree with those who have actually tried NFP that it works (breastfeeding even aside), and that part of the beauty of it is increased communication (and that's never a bad thing in marriage, and particularly when it's about intimacy) and shared responsilility between both husband and wife.

Finally, no one's saying promescuity didn't exist before the Pill..for crying out loud, it's listed in the Bible as sinful, so it's been around. But there's no denying that it has facilitated sin to a degree unheard of before. And that's never a good thing.

[88. HoosierBeck said the following at 1:03 PM on Apr 29:]

88

A lot to think about and chew on...However, there is one VERY valid question that I would really like to see addressed by Boundless (maybe Candice or Ted since they are responding to comments:) What is the essential difference between NFP and the Pill in the context of marriage? If they both try to control fertility to some extent, how is that different?
I honestly would be very interested hearing that opinion.
Also, it is obvious that strong feeling have been brought out by this discussion...Boundless, I am open-minded about this discussion, but you need to know that if you make a blog without many qualifiers and then defend your statements vigorously, that looks like some sort of blanket statement against the pill and birth control. You may not have intended it that way, but it does. So please qualify your statements if needed, but also please don't get upset that was the assumption made. I have been blessed by your insights many times on this site, but on this topic, I've been surprised by the strident tone you've used in some of your responses (not all).

[89. Ted Slater said the following at 1:17 PM on Apr 29:]

89

I'd rather this conversation not turn into a discussion about the blessings of NFP, and how it's God's preferred means of birth control.

FWIW, my wife doesn't use The Pill. It made her sick, and so she stopped using them. We do use contraceptives, but not that one.

As far as NFP, I've found that it fosters an inordinate sense of pride in many of those who practice it. Kinda like the "I'm better than you" attitude that some women have who choose to give birth at home with a midwife and no epidural, rather than in a hospital with physicians and advanced medical equipment.

If you go the NFP route, please examine your heart to be sure you don't take pride in your decision. It's fine, but you're not a better person because you use NFP. It's fine, but you're no more "godly" than someone who selects another form of birth control.

Personally, I think NFP can be cruel to women who practice it, denying them sexual enjoyment when they're most desirous of it.

[90. Susanne said the following at 1:28 PM on Apr 29:]

90

(This may be a bit redundant now - tried to post last night and had trouble.)

I'm another woman with a reproductively significant medical condition. It's a funny place to be. I'm a Christian. I have not yet had any need for contraception. When the time comes, I may need help conceiving, rather than help avoiding conception. And yet I've spent several years as a consumer of the products of the "contraceptive revolution."

Based on my experience of dealing with this paradoxical situation, especially in the midst of preparations with my boyfriend for engagement and marriage, I want to issue a plea that we as Christians be more careful in our conversations about contraception.

I understand the spirit of Mohler's criticism, and am mostly sympathetic. I'm glad he's encouraging evangelicals to join the discussion. But these excerpts suggest to me that he’s missing some of what's really at stake. It's not just the severing of sex and childbearing, or the transformation of pregnancy and children from the "natural gifts of the marital union" into "elective choices." True, all of these can be consequences of technologically controlling the reproductive process. But for infertile couples, these things happen even without technological help. The connection between sex and childbearing is painfully severed (or at least severely weakened), pregnancy is not an elective choice, and children are not natural gifts of the marital union.

Likewise, there are some really good reasons for technologically controlling the reproductive process. For me and many others, OC pills have made daily life a lot less painful, and protected against serious long-term problems. I've recently discontinued the pills, because I would love to have the option of using NFP or FAM when I get married. But I had to start taking another medication at the same time to make this even a possibility, and it may not work. It also has some unpleasant side effects.

I've included these details because I'd love to see more opportunities for people like me to join the contraceptive discussion. The landscape of options is far more complicated for us, and it's hard to find resources for navigating it. I'd also like more women to be aware of just how common these conditions are, so that they wouldn't take their fertility for granted.

But NONE of the details of my situation matter when it comes to the spiritual significance of sex and reproduction. However difficult or easy it proves for me and my future husband to get me pregnant (and remember, it takes two), we will still fail to submit ourselves daily to Christ. We will still attempt to take our family's fortunes into our own hands. We will still struggle to honor each other in our sexual relationship. I'm not married and I haven't had sex, so my perspective may be somewhat limited. But I wish people like Mohler would talk more about these deep spiritual struggles, which apply universally to all people in all times and places, and focus less on the effects of specific modern contraceptive practices. It's not that I think the two categories of things are connected. I just worry that the cultural generalizations sweep right past a good number of people, while leaving the stubborn layer of spiritual grime completely untouched.

[91. Ted Slater said the following at 1:31 PM on Apr 29:]

91

Marian (#87) -- no, The Pill is not necessarily an "abortifacient."

See this blog I wrote -- "Birth Control: Baby Killer?" -- for details.

[92. Mark W said the following at 1:44 PM on Apr 29:]

92

EKB (#81)

I'm not trying to single you out, and I don't want to be a jerk about this, but I have to take issue w/ what I believe is the logical fallacy behind the NFP-only movement:

"With NFP, the couple prayerfully discerns whether or not it is a good time to welcome a child, and if necessary abstains from sex while the wife is fertile. The unitive and procreative aspects are not separated." (emphasis mine)

Except they are. You're intentionally separating them by abstaining while the wife is fertile. Having sex only when the wife isn't fertile is to intentionally solely enjoy the unitive aspect of sex while trying to avoid the procreative aspect. That makes it by definition a method of contraception (trying to prevent conception). As far as that is concerned, there really is no difference. At all. Your goal is still to enjoy the unitive aspect of sex while avoiding conception.

[93. Sara said the following at 2:11 PM on Apr 29:]

93

Ted wrote:

"Personally, I think NFP can be cruel to women who practice it, denying them sexual enjoyment when they're most desirous of it."

I never thought of it that way before. Interesting.

[94. Jayme said the following at 2:28 PM on Apr 29:]

94

I think "by-the-book" NFP can be cruel to women who practice it...there is a distinction to be made....

[95. Benjamin said the following at 2:35 PM on Apr 29:]

95

Ted (#91) -- in the blog you linked to you wrote, "Pro-life physicians who have carefully and conscientiously studied this issue have come to different conclusions about the abortifacient potential of COCs."

I think you are, perhaps unintentionally, misstating -- almost no one disagrees about the abortifacient potential of oral contraceptives. That is why emergency contraceptive (the "morning after pill") is essentially identical to the birth control pill (indeed in some cases the BCP can be used as emergency contraceptive), and is still effective if conception has occurred. What is debated is the frequency with which the abortifacient potential is realized.

Personally, I think for anyone that believes the soul is present at conception, playing that kind of percentages game is morally unacceptable. Would the argument that a woman only had 1 abortion out of all the times she had sex, be acceptable? Of course not. So why should the argument that the BCP only causes an abortion 1% of the time (or whatever it might be) be legitimate?

[96. IWishToRemainAnonymous said the following at 2:51 PM on Apr 29:]

96

Mickey (#76) - it's great that you were healed from your physical problems after being saved. I tried a number of natural means to get my painful cycles under control, had faith God could take care of it, had people pray over me, etc., and my condition continued to worsen. Eventually I made the decision that I needed to take the meds that had been made available. The three months' worth of free samples given to me by my doctor sat untouched for nearly a year. It was not a decision I took lightly.

Kelly-1 (#86) I was concerned about future fertility issues when I started the pill in my teens, and when my now-fiance and I started dating I talked with my doctor about it. She told me that quite frequently, the first-line treatment for infertility is actually to put the woman on the pill for a few months! Apparently if your cycles are so all over the place that you have no clue when you're fertile, it's difficult to try to conceive. After a few months on the pill, the woman usually has a couple of months of regularity during which fertility might be more easily predicted.

[97. Julie said the following at 3:14 PM on Apr 29:]

97

Another major difference between family life today in the west, and family life historically and globally, is that most of us live in nuclear families. I mean, I would be happy to have 6 kids if I lived in an extended family with many hand around to help, and a husband who worked on the farm but was around much more than your average husband workinga 9-5 job with a commute. I would argue that a nuclear family with only one adult at home with children is profoundly out of sync with God's design, and perhaps it is that difference that makes it a negative thing for some families to have many children.

[98. Cat said the following at 3:21 PM on Apr 29:]

98

Well, when I get married I plan to use the Pill.

Why?

Well...I've been very patient and I plan to enjoy all of marriage to the fullest extent possible. *grins*

But seriously, if God wants me to have a kid I doubt a little pill would stop Him from getting me pregnant. Even abstinence didn't help Mary.

[99. Jo said the following at 3:49 PM on Apr 29:]

99

Cat,
"Even abstinence didn't help Mary."

Haha! Very true. What God wants, God gets. :)

[100. Anna said the following at 3:52 PM on Apr 29:]

100

I am the eldest of six children. I loved growing up in a large family, it taught me selflessness, service and how to love more. I'm so thankful that my parents allowed God to plan their family.
When I get married someday I would love to have a large family. :)

A few things I have observed in my own family and many friends of ours.

1. Breastfeeding (without a schedule) is a natural form of birth control. Breastfeeding delays a woman's cycle and leaves her (mostly) unable to conceive for a good length of time. (1-3 years)

2. I have four friends and friends of friends who were on the Pill for the first few years of their married life, they all had trouble conceiving and had early miscarriages. Before finally conceiving and carrying to term healthy babies.
I belive that to alter your cycle with chemicals is not healthy for you or your future babies.

We need to have Jesus' attitude towards children, and that is one of welcome and love. They are gifts, priceless and precious.
No matter if you have two or twelve. :)