Didn’t Caesar use those taxes for all kinds of horrific things, including hunting down full grown Christians and putting them to death? Of course, I’m not saying that this was acceptable, it just was as it was.

One thing that comes in to play with birth control meds is that there are dozens of options. If a couple has concerns, as far as causing a fertilized embryo to abort, they need to do their homework and find out how each option works.

I would much rather offer government funded birth control to those in need over offering government paid abortions, other than for health reasons. However, as someone else stated on the other thread, one can go to any PP office and get birth control pills and check ups. I don’t think that pastors and other Christian big wigs should be telling people what type of birth control to use, or not. That is a decision for each couple before God.

On another note, you can have all the free birth control meds available that you want, but they won’t prevent STDs.

Fascinating discussion! I’ll out myself as a long-time lurker here because it seems like all opinions are being respected – if not agreed with – on this topic (and no matter what I contribute I respect the right to everyone else’s opinion as well). Thank you for posting this and drawing so many out of the woodwork!!!

It seems to me the biggest stumbling block in a secular democracy- whether the USA, European countries, Australia or wherever – is not so much the definition of when life begins, or whether the Pill = murder, etc. Reasonable theologians from many traditions, not just Christians, disagree on this, just as few, very few who say that abortion and birth control = murder are willing to publicly state what the punishment for the woman, man or doctor should be for committing that form of murder. The day the Pope, John Piper or Tullian Tchvijian, Al Mohler, etc. say this, it will be news indeed. And the day a female theologian says it will be double-newsworthy.

But let’s say that all Protestant Christians, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. could some day agree on the above. For the purposes of legislation in a democracy, it’s really immaterial. That to me is the real sticking point. I can be convinced of nearly anything moral or theological related to abortion and birth control depending on my mood. Truly. But tell me that our nation’s laws need to be changed to require following a specific religious tradition- and Christians have many many denominations, mind you – I’d wonder whether that American flag waving on your Methodist or Baptist church was put there satirically.

(P.S. I realize this comment could easily cause the thread to be hijacked into a “Was the USA founded as a Christian nation?” type thing. That’s not the point of this thread so I most likely won’t respond to anyone who wants to go there.)

@ BTDT:

The taxes that Jesus commanded people to pay were very likely funding the worship of pagan gods and/or the cult of the emperor, since these were the official religion(s) in the Roman Empire. How many Christians today would be practicing tax evasion if their tax dollars were going directly into the coffers of state-sponsored Wiccans, Buddhists, etc.? And yet Jesus commands us to pay our taxes.

Also I’m pretty sure you’re right – the actual medical term for a miscarriage is an abortion.

My own opinion on birth control has evolved over the last couple years. At one point I was a huge advocate of the pill, condoms, IUD, etc. Then I found my way inside the doors of the Catholic church. While I really wanted to convert to the Catholic faith, I had no intention of giving up my contraception. I only began to reconsider my position when I was posed with this question: “Did my personal use of birth control reflect how God saw children or how the world saw children?”

It was after that question and countless hours studying and praying that I began to sift through what *I* felt convicted about. While I have switched to NFP(Natural Family Planning), I do not feel like it is my right nor my responsibility to try to sway anyone else’s heart in a specific direction. It frustrates me that there is so much condemnation, in every direction, when it comes to this very personal issue.

For those who did not see the Sproul Jr. tweet, here it is: “Birth control, like abortion, is sexual bulimia.” Handmaid’s Tale anyone?

I think the most ridiculous QF propaganda I ever heard, beyond even the garbage I heard from Vision Forum, was from Nancy Campbell of Above Rubies magazine. (This magazine lists “101 Reasons to Have Another Baby” on their website, and most of them are about as good as “babies are cute!” I don’t know if any have to do with actually wanting another kid.)

On one of her DVDs, Nancy actually said that you are “allied with Satan” if you ever do anything to space (let alone stop having) babies. This is for any reason, including cancer. Her magazines are filled with stories of women who ignored their doctor’s advice and got pregnant, despite having cancer, a hole in their lungs, etc. Of course, she only hears the “success” stories, not all the lives that are ruined in cases like these.

QF people like Campbell are against NFP, so they take things even farther than the Catholic Church. In a way, it’s like the health and wealth movement because they teach that God will do all sorts of stuff he never promised, like veto fertilization if it’s a bad time for you, increase your income so you can always afford to keep having babies, etc. They must never consider that throughout history, and even today, starvation is common in many places. I guess they either never think about hungry Christians in Africa (let alone the US) or think they are all fake Christians and that’s why God doesn’t rain manna down on them when they have big families.

Or perhaps the losses are greater than the number not so lost.

As was pointed out in comments to the previous post, if one is an insurer (which includes government health programs), birth control costs less over time than the avoided pregnancies, births, child health care, etc. So the birth control is actually paid for by avoided cost and is a free good to the insurer. And that would include tubal ligation done during delivery or vasectomy.

One blog I read made an interesting point. If you take 100 women and have them take the pill perfectly, there will be one pregnancy per year. If you tell them that contraception is evil and they don’t use any, there will be 85 pregnancies, and probably 20-40 of these babies will be lost to miscarriage. So even if using the pill causes say, half of conceptions to fail to implant (which is unproven), the total number of “precious babies” lost is much lower. In one case, perhaps one baby out of 100 doesn’t make it, compared to a much higher number in the group that was QF.

I think her point was that pro-life advocates that are anti-pill or anti-contraception aren’t being consistent. If they really think that a woman’s actions that lead to a failure to implant are the same as an abortion, they’d be doing everything possible to prevent pregnancies except when the mother is very healthy and likely to carry the baby to full term. Instead, many have the attitude that “well, taking the pill is intentional, so if it causes a missed implantation, the woman has sinned. But if she has a history of miscarriages, and the doctors can’t fix it, and she continues to get pregnant over and over and lose the babies, she hasn’t done anything wrong.”

Now, I certainly don’t want to see miscarriages criminalized or women shamed for them. I do wonder, however, about the inconsistency in this way of thinking. If a a restaurant’s customers kept dying of food poisoning, even if it was unintentional and the restaurant couldn’t figure out what the problem was, wouldn’t we expect it to be shut down? Likewise, if a woman thinks hormonal methods are sinful to use, because they “kill babies,” and yet she keeps having miscarriages, maybe she should just give her body a rest.

@ Julie Anne:

“He ended up debating my daughter throughout the weekend – I counted 23 tweets from my daughter alone. … He then sent her his private e-mail to discuss it off-line – lol. … She refused to let him stray off topic until the end.”

Good for her. (Though yes, it’s a little weird that he would take that much time out of his busy schedule to debate with someone he doesn’t know who didn’t like his tweet.) It wouldn’t even have occurred to me to debate a Big Name like that – in Sproul Jr.’s case especially I think I would have just assumed it would be pointless and like arguing with a wall. I take it he didn’t just try to pass off a long string of insults as an argument (like the Baylys).

@ HoppyTheToad:

Sounds like a good plan for a breeding program 🙁

Here’s something that leaves me scratching my head about Vision Forum’s extreme stance on birth control (no form of birth control is acceptable, ever, and no intervention should occur if pregnancy endangers a mother’s life).

They want to say that because life begins at conception, The Pill is a Great Evil because it is responsible for untold amounts of bloodshed inside the womb. As in, it is killing embryos by not allowing them to implant.

However. Anyone ever heard of “snowflake babies?” They are the extra fertilized eggs resulting from in vitro fertilization that get put in the freezer in case they are needed later. Most get destroyed. VF is highly opposed to IVF because it puts children (fertilized eggs) at such risk. People can adopt these embryos and give birth to their snowflake babies. You would think VF would be all over this idea! Encouraging couples to adopt these poor babies that were put in the freezer. BUT, they are opposed to it. The claim is that for a woman to carry a fertilized egg from another couple in her womb is… get this… a form of ADULTERY!!!

Here is my question. Why would VF make such a lame, and clearly false, claim to keep women from saving these embryos, if they truly believe that the embryos are human beings?

These are the things that cause me to question if “the sanctity of human life” is REALLY what VF is all about? If it was about saving embryos, they would be consistent and encourage the adoption of snowflake babies.

I believe that what likely motivates VF instead, is a goal of removing any and all control that a woman may have over her own body. Women must have no say in what happens to their bodies. If she gets pregnant every year for 5 years straight and has grueling pregnancies, she may not take measures to prevent. “It’s God’s will.” If she desperately wants children but cannot get pregnant, she may not use IVF. “It’s God’s will.” If her husband is sterile but she still longs to carry a child, she may not adopt an embryo. “It’s God’s will.”

Women must not have even an inch of control in anything. Why? What is to be gained by women having no decision-making power?

Looking for You wrote:

Dee, I wonder if this is why certain groups (Bill Gothard?) promote couples abstaining from sex at all times of the month except the woman’s fertile time?

Looking for You – I was not aware of that, but I have heard of early weaning to promote early return of fertility. I have been influenced by full-quiver (we have 7 kids) and one day I’m going to tell my story, but I tell you, this system is whacked. If you are nursing your babies around the clock, the suckling at the breast produces hormones that suppress ovulation. In my opinion, this is God’s gift to mamas to let them have a little break time to enjoy their precious babies, nursing, and recuperating from pregnancy and the very physically challenging time of having a little one.

The mindset of these Reconstructionist-populate-the-world-with-an-army-of-Chrisitan-warrior-children is forget that wonderful gift of ovulation suppression. Remove that baby from the breast so mom’s cycle can return and she can get fertile again, ready for conception. Meanwhile, dad goes off to work like a normal guy, leaving his woman behind with the passel of bambinos to take care of and heaven forbid if this woman get postpartum depression. Can you say Andrea Yates, anyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates

Why does it seem that so many “good christians” are soooo concerned about other peoples eggs, when and if they fertilize, whether the pill terminates an egg, how horrible abortion and birth control are and are so willing to openly and loudly stand up for this belief and judge every person who would disagree,march on washington, picket clinics, and harshly judge women who choose,…. and yet once children are actually born and living among them it then becomes okay to physically beat them into submission (even into adulthood), or to protect those who would abuse them, or idolize, follow, and give generous amounts of their money to the leaders that would abuse children or protect child abusers or ignore child poverty and suffering?

My opinion has always been if YOU don’t believe in abortion, then YOU simply don’t have one. And if YOU don’t believe in birth control, then YOU don’t use it. Abortion and birth control are both legal options for a woman who makes the choice to use them. I admit I may be biased but my good friend was nearly killed by a boyfriend who attacked her. He broke her eye socket and jaw in several places. With her jaw wired shut for months and while on several medications for the brain trauma she suffered, she found out she was pregnant by the man charged with her attempted murder. The fetus was severely damaged from the medications, and with her jaw wired the nausea threatened to choke her to death with her own vomit every day. Fortunately, in my state, she was able to have the abortion performed even though she was 17 weeks along. It saved her life.
The propaganda I hear is incredulous — I think its safe to say no one is “pro-abortion” anymore than anyone is “pro-chemotherapy”. Its a sad and painful necessity and difficult personal choice for a woman. And so pro-choice is just that — reserving all our judgement of others personal choices about their own body and medical needs knowing we too have the freedom to choose for ourselves too without judgement.
By the way, the best and number one abortion preventative measure is birth control — it reduces more abortions than anything else. I will never understand people who are “pro-life” also being against things like birth control, or universal healthcare, or pro death penalty. To care about the formation of life, but then care so little about the quality of it for those born is hypocritical IMO.
Just my two cents.

“the suckling at the breast produces hormones that suppress ovulation”

Julie-Anne,

I too was influenced by QF thinking. I agree with you that nursing CAN suppress ovulation for a time and is a gift. But it makes me uncomfortable when it is recommended to young women as a reliable birth control method. This “birth control” option was the ONLY one presented to me as acceptable. It did not work for me, or for many of the women I know, and I nursed my babies whenever and wherever they wanted, for as long as they wanted. They even slept with me at night and nursed throughout the night. My babies still came very close together.

Thankfully, I was not in the Militant Fecundity crowd who encourage women to stop nursing early to intentionally have babies close together. This is not healthy for mom, baby, or the next baby. But when a group’s mindset becomes so militant, it really is not about what’s best for the individuals anymore, but what’s best for the group. Religious fascism? I think yes.

The more I back away from Dominion Theology, the more I wonder how I ever did get caught up in it? The entire spirit of it is so anti-Christ, anti-Holy Spirit, and relies instead upon worldly things such as numbers, wealth, power, and control… outward conformity to man and law rather than the inner transformation of the Holy Spirit.

Looking for You wrote:

But it makes me uncomfortable when it is recommended to young women as a reliable birth control method. This “birth control” option was the ONLY one presented to me as acceptable. It did not work for me, or for many of the women I know, and I nursed my babies whenever and wherever they wanted, for as long as they wanted.

See, there’s that black/white thinking again – my way or the highway. Now my creepo meter goes off when I see that. For the record, frequent nursing did not suppress my cycles, either, although I have read studies on this, so maybe we are the minority. It’s on my list of questions to ask God.

Oops… in my post at 11:34 I did NOT mean to imply that anyone is “The Anti-Christ”, in case anybody read it that way. I just meant that the spirit of any movement that relies on numbers, power, and wealth rather than the Holy Spirit is “against Christ.”

I’m with Lynne. I only know of one person here in Australia who’s completely against all birth control (he’s unmarried and heavily influenced by some of the stranger ultraconservative American groups that get discussed here often). I know a number of Christian families with four kids, but more than that is quite unusual, and less than that is very normal. I’ve never heard any mainstream questioning of birth control in Christian circles in Australia.

Lynne T, Pam & Haitch, I agree that the situation here in the UK is similar to what you describe in Australia. Although virtually all Christians are against abortion, birth control, if not of the type of “morning after” pill (ie an abortifacient), has never been an issue in the main Protestant churches, and as far as I am aware there is no organisation equivalent to Vision Forum or Quiverfull.

In a way, this topic creeps me out (for lack of a better term, and not that I mean it’s an off-limit-to-discuss thing) – what I mean is, it’s no one’s business what a couple does between themselves and what arrangement they have worked out for their family. The use of anything – the pill, sterilization, NFP, etc. – I believe is strictly between the couple and God. Aren’t we the ones who will have to answer on judgement day? I feel that it’s an invasion of privacy for a “church” to be concerned with family size. It’s like “Big-Brother Church” is watching in our bedroom!

On the other hand, I will state that I am personally against hormonal birth control, only in that I don’t think many people know the side effects of it. I think it tends to be given out, especially to young women, like candy, and many are unaware that there are some serious side effects, such as blood clots. I personally know 3 women who are younger than me (I’m early 30s) who now have have to take Coumadin for clots for the rest of their lives! I myself cannot use it because it gives me horrible migraines.

@ Looking for You:

“The claim is that for a woman to carry a fertilized egg from another couple in her womb is… get this… a form of ADULTERY!!!”

For Pete’s sake. For a bunch of Reconstructionists who are all into BIBLICAL LAW LAW LAW, these people sure do a great job redefining every sin in the Law. The legal definition of adultery in the Bible is “sexual contact by a married person with someone who is not their spouse.” But in VF land, adultery is “having a crush on another woman’s future husband” and “carrying another couple’s previously fertilized egg.” So adultery can now be committed by unmarried people without sexual contact, thus rendering “adultery” a completely meaningless term. How much can they respect the Law when they change it at will?

I think my avatar has a better grasp on adultery than these folks.

“How much can they respect the Law when they change it at will?”

Hester, this is SUCH a good point. It seems to me like a lot of redefining goes on in these circles.

Lola I was going to say something similar to your first paragraph. The whole issue of the church sticking it’s nose in my bedroom is just too creepy for me.

I do have a question and I don’t know if this is the proper place but here goes. When I was living in the NW there was a church group (don’t remember the name, maybe JulieAnn will know who I’m talking about) that was very cultic. They didn’t believe in any kind of medical care at all. Women and babies died due to no medical care. Children were removed after the medical neglect death of at least one chld. I can’t remember if this was the same group or not but children were removed due to abusive spanking also. My question is, how many of these quiverfull, no birth control groups also believe that God will heal or not according to your faith and you should not get any kind of medical care? It seems to me all this kind of stuff; quiverfull, no birth control, faith healing only, etc. all go hand in hand.

I don’t want to start a tangent here. So, if this really should be discussed as a separate post you can ignore my post.

Wisdomchaser wrote:

When I was living in the NW there was a church group (don’t remember the name, maybe JulieAnn will know who I’m talking about) that was very cultic. They didn’t believe in any kind of medical care at all. Women and babies died due to no medical care. Children were removed after the medical neglect death of at least one chld.

Are you thinking of Christian Scientists? (Irony all over that name.)

They are a church formed in the 1800s in the Boston area by Mary Baker Eddy. Some think they are now a news organization with a church attached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

Dee @ 8:59 AM,

I’m not that familiar with Gothard, this is just something I’ve heard mentioned by several people.

I tried to find out more about his teaching and learned that he teaches abstinence during a woman’s menstrual cycle and for 7 days after it ends, as well as 40 days after birth of a son and 80 days after birth of a daughter and the evening before worship.

Wisdomchaser wrote:

Lola I was going to say something similar to your first paragraph. The whole issue of the church sticking it’s nose in my bedroom is just too creepy for me.
When I was living in the NW there was a church group (don’t remember the name, maybe JulieAnn will know who I’m talking about) that was very cultic. They didn’t believe in any kind of medical care at all. Women and babies died due to no medical care. . . .
I don’t want to start a tangent here.

It’s a related tangent. It’s taking agendas to the extreme just like the anti-birth control people. You may be referring to the Followers of Christ group in Oregon City. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Followers_of_Christ

The thing about these groups is they expect everyone to follow their way. But they are not consistent with their own lives. I saw them wearing glasses. If they trust God to heal their vision, then why are they wearing glasses? I guess they get to use reasonable medical care for themselves so they can see, but to heck with their teen who had breathing difficulties and died at home, surrounded by “loved” ones in prayer. An antibiotic would have saved his life.

One of the trials that I have experienced with our second was colic. It meant no rest at all. I finally got my spouse, who was at wits end for lack of sleep, etc., in the weeks following his birth, to call the doctor and get a scrip for the child. At the time, the preferred med was paregoric, just a drop with the evening feeding and, if colic prevented a nap, a drop with the pre-nap feeding. Worked like a charm, and no apparent side effects, except a more sane and caring mama. Amazing what a good sleep will do for many.

“It is true that some people sinfully postpone children for reasons motivated by greed and selfishness. It is conversely true that some idealists have children prematurely, before they are truly able to care for them.”

How come Desiring God categorises it as sinful to postpone having children so that you can all live at a certain level of comfort when you eventually have them, but not sinful to create human beings just for the sake of pursuing an ideology at the cost of your children’s wellbeing? If you want to avoid doing what ‘some idealists’ do and having kids before you’re realy able to care for them, then where’s the line before it turns into ‘sinful’ postponement? Seems like you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

The only way to do it right is to do it exactly as the author of the piece would do it. How unlike DesiringGod to endorse such an incoherent-yet-rigid approach to a delicate subject 😉

I’m ardently pro life.

That said, an honest dr will help you sort through birth control options. Depending on the level of risk your health, your sanity, and your faith allow you, you can prevent pregnancy and still not endanger fertilized eggs.

My dr at one point sifted through the different pill choices with me. Some are less effective at preventing ovulation but still good at preventing pregnancy. Not for me, as they might cause the loss of a child. But those that prevent ovulation–some minor risk of ovulating and then preventing implanting, but actually a lower risk than doing nothing.

There are still condoms, spermicides, diaphrams, and combining those with natural family planning. And abstinence.

My take as an adoptive and birth mom both is this: don’t “do it” if you absolutely refuse to have a baby. Period. Don’t choose things like the forms of iud which do not prevent conception but do prevent implantation HOPEFULLY, but are very dangerous if they fail. Do ask questions and choose between barrier, chemical, and hormonal birth control wisely.

Make the best choices you can, and trust grace.

Hester wrote:

I’m pretty sure those weapon-obsessed Bayly brothers will too.

“Weapon-obsessed” as in “ZARDOZ YOUR GOD GAVE YOU THE GIFT OF THE GUN!!!”?

HoppyTheToad wrote:

One problem with the QF movement is that some seem to truly believe God is up there directing each sperm either to fertilize or not fertilize a particular egg. I think they have to believe this (despite neither scientific or biblical evidence for it) because otherwise they’d have to admit that people in terrible circumstances will end up with huge families.

First thing that came to mind — Quiverfull filtered through Monty Python:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptTwi6-ii-s

Bridget wrote:

@ HoppyTheToad:

Sounds like a good plan for a breeding program

Or a puppy farm trying to maximize production.

“WE CONQUER THE LANDS OF THE INFIDEL! OUR WOMBS SHALL BE OUR WEAPONS!”

…and Sophie, if you asked them about the young boys who were taunting Elijah and God sent the bears who came out of the woods and mauled and killed them, they look at you all deer-caught-in-the-headlights while studdering. Like I said yesterday, there are many instances in Scripture, where God demanded the killing of babies/youngsters, or even allowed it. Yet, they think God is so pro-choice. I”m sorry, we cannot ignore the ugly parts of the Bible just because it doesn’t fit our theology. Those stories alone should tell one that the Bible is not some rule book, but a narrative. An ancient one at that, that is truly hard to understand. But taking the passage literally, at face value, doesn’t bode too well. Now why would God kill some kids that were taunting a guy is way beyond me. But it doesn’t appear to me that such a God is always pro-choice. And that’s just my opinion. I’m sure I could get some push back for that. But I dont really care. It is what it is.

2Kings 2:23-25– “He went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!” 24 When he turned around and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys.

Looking for You,
I can’t imagine dealing with PPD in an environment where depression is considered a sin issue. I had support from my husband, and some support from family (but all of our family was out of town so it was limited). My mother actually apologized to me years later that she had not been more present for me. I think she actually “got it” after the fact for various reasons.

Ace – I completely understand about the colic. My little baby girl cried for hours on end and I would say I now understand why people use sleep deprivation as a form of torture!!

I was seriously worried all of the time. We couldn’t get her to keep any milk down and we had to see a specialist. Surgery was considered but ultimately we didn’t have to end up going that route. We had to feed her about twice as much as a normal infant and in smaller doses and closer intervals just so she could gain weight. If I had followed a dogmatic BabyWise type of program, she probably would have died from starvation.

I wonder, do mothers in churches that follow the Vision Forum ever talk amongst themselves about these kinds of issues? Is there any room for honestly and openness at all?

I think what really bothers me is that there seems to be more love for the agenda than for individuals who need special considerations. At least with Natural Family Planning and the Catholic church (and I’m not trying to push that at all), there is consideration for the good of the family and individuals in specific circumstances. Abstinence may be warranted for the good of the mother for certain seasons or periods of time. Also, it requires sacrifice which in my mind is a big part of love. The men who push patriarchy don’t seeem to be making many sacrifices – it all seems to fall on the women.

Jill wrote:

I think what really bothers me is that there seems to be more love for the agenda than for individuals who need special considerations….The men who push patriarchy don’t seem to be making many sacrifices – it all seems to fall on the women.

Ding, ding, dong. We have a winner! At the FIC we went to, the men didn't live much differently than if they had only 2 kids instead of 7. The women, however, sacrificed their mental, emotional, and physical health to homeschool their flock while being pregnant and having a toddler or two.

@ Jill:

Yes, NFP does take sacrifice. If you are not married to a man who is 100% on board with this form of birth control then it simply won’t work and both parties will be miserable.

This is a great discussion. I consider myself “choose-life.” I am all about empowering women (and men) to be in a position to joyfully say yes to their babies.

I think it’s good for believers to encourage each other to view children as a blessing. I also think it’s good for believers to openly discuss the pros and cons of various forms of birth control, and pray for wisdom and guidance about what is best in each circumstance. I wish someone would have talked to me about my options more before I defaulted to the pill when I got married. After switching to NFP I really appreciate the Catholic theology to birth control, just not the legalistic approach to it (ie: this is the only way to please God).

At the end of the day, the decision needs to remain a personal one, not in a selfish sense but in a “I am confident in my decision before God.”

linda wrote:

My take as an adoptive and birth mom both is this: don’t “do it” if you absolutely refuse to have a baby. Period.

Linda–

So let me get this right. People should not have sex if they dont want kids? Really? Again, this is legalism, and i know you dont see it that way, but it is. Sex is more than just a physical act, I am sure you are aware of that. But making love and loving another is natural progression and expression of an adult individual. To tell a population of people who do not desire children, and many for very good reasons, that they cannot express love physically, experience intimacy and a personal closeness with someone BECAUSE they dont want kids is placing a burden upon people which they will generally always fail. Sexuality is complicated and extremely complex. It is not your right, or the right of another to tell another adult not to have sex or make love, or have sexual intimacy because they dont want kids.

It’s apparent in the Christian world that the only people who are allowed the benefits of a good life, sex and intimacy, and family included, are (1) hetero couples, (2) only the married, (3) only those who are willing to have children, (4) the financially secure.

All of these rules and ideals that people have, that they are thinking speak for God, simply do not speak for God. Why are we so authoritative on matters in which Scripture is often expressly silent? Yet, we read into Scripture our own views and cultural biases and lens.

Daisy said the other day that people should just keep their legs shut and wait ’til marriage like her. I would say to Daisy, there is no “until” for many. Many people will never marry. Are you saying that they should never ever experience the closeness, love and intimacy of another simply because they have never found a spouse? What about extreme cases where a person is disabled and chooses to use a person who primarily provides sexual closeness and intimacy for the extremely disabled?

Daisy’s ability to remain chaste until she is married will be severely challenged when or if it should happen that she will never marry. If she is lucky to have a mild libido, then that may be very well doable for her. But if she was given a very high strung one like many women I know, it becomes damn near impossible. And if we want to follow biblical examples of chastity and virginity, (1) we can NEVER look at the Christian godly men in Scripture who were men after God’s own heart who had prostitutes, daughters, and many MANY women. A man’s virginity is never discussed in Scripture. Why is that? (2) People in the Bible were often together before a marriage ceremony; and in the case of Song of Songs, it never says they were married before they were making all that hot passionate love all over the vineyard (sorry, that’s my version, lol.. it’s HOT though : )

And I could go on and on. Could it be, though, that the Bible doesn’t really prohibit many of the things we think are entirely wrong in every situation? Could it be that every individual has to decide for themselves what is right for them? My sister lives with her boyfriend, and they are expecting a baby. They are as ever committed, loving, honoring, respectful, monogamous and a family unit than most legally/religiously married couples I know. They dont fight. They work together. They do all the things a married couple would do. How is it that a ceremony or a legal contract will change that, or what is so wrong about it?

I see a lot wrong in tons of Christian marriages, even to the point where I would seriously not consider marrying am evangelical Christian man. Seriously. So if God judges the heart and the actions of a person, and if out of all the laws, the greatest is to love thy neighbor as thy self, then I see a lot of Christian marriages failing this, and a lot of people who co-habitate honor this commandment. What is the difference between all the Christians who divorce and marry other people, or then who happen to co-habitate and never marry again, and all the people who commit but never marry? Is one more sinful than the other?

Morality is complex, it includes the spiritual, cultural and individual aspects of a person. It is not cut and dry. It is also not for humans with limited understanding of life as a whole to try and regulate what is moral for everyone, especially when it comes to trivial matters. There are very obvious universal, humanitarian laws of morality that you can see in all cultures and religions, not just Christianity. And in my opinion, Christianity doesn’t really offer a sense of morality that cannot be found in other religions.

@ Retha Faurie:
Good reasoning, Retha. So true. What is interesting is that I hang out in the ex-Christians forums and there are some brilliant minds there. One of the things I see very clearly that has sparked my own thinking is the use of religion to control the masses. Stay with me here…

Religion can be and is very often controlling, even so to the most intimate and acute details of a person’s life. The bigger question for me is not whether or not abortion or birth control is wrong, but why, as believers, we feel that it is normal and right for all of these religious leaders and commenters to enter the most sacred spaces in our lives and tell us what to do???

It is my very own opinion, like others that I have spoken to, that this is not the right nor the reason for faith. Morality is not a Christian invention. It is my belief that morality is about being a human. I dont need God to tell me to be good to others to want to be good to others. I can see that it benefits me that if I am good to others and I love my neighbor, then my world is more at peace and there is harmony. It creates a better world for us all, whether we worship Yahweh, Buddah, Krishna and whoever else (except for Satan, haha)… But my point is that I dont need religion or its leaders to tell me what to do with my life. I simply need God and Him alone. If he cannot speak to me through His spirit, then he has failed and his power is certainly limited.

These discussions are fruitful, and they make people think. But why not ask the question that, for me, is the elephant in the room, and that is: Why do you think it is normal and right for your religious leaders to tell you what to do with the most sacred spaces in your life?

My vagina, what I put in it, and dont allow is not the business of my pastor (of which, I dont have, BTW). How I have sex, how often, who I love, how I date, how I parent my children (unless I am abusing them), what school they go to, if I work or my husband, and so forth and so on really isn’t his business. People shudder over the lack of privacy from social media and technology, and our government invading our personal spaces, and yet, we allow the “church” and religious leaders to invade those very spaces. Why? What could he possibly know more about my vagina, my uterus and my bedroom than I do? It simply is none of his business. Not the Pope, not Doug Wilson, not any man but my boyfriend/husband/partner.

I think people need to start pushing people out of their private spaces and personal sanctuaries. It simply isn’t for others to decide any of these things for me. If you cannot stand before God FOR ME, then you have no business trying to judge me and rule over my life. And they are RULING with iron fists.

@ Julie Anne:
Yes, Julie Anne, this looks like the group I was thinking of. They were/are very extreme. ps-sorry about getting your name wrong.

Trina, re the bald/mocking/bear/death thing: I honestly think that fundamentalists care less than anyone else about what the Bible actually says, or intended to say than anyone else, and that’s why they rarely address the tough bits but when they do, they come out with nonsense(see Mark Driscoll’s sermon series on Esther).

THIS from SGM Survivors:

“So it appears that SGM operations were in the RED for $1,231,370 for 2012. Perhaps they could trim the $560,660 in travel expenses. (This amount is typical for both SGM and CLC.)

If the average travel day cost them $280 per day, that translates into 2002 travel days, or 133 days of travel for fifteen SGM employees.

How that heck does one rack up these kind of cost??? What kind of entourage goes out with these SGM men?

Who cares? These numbers are hard to relate to you say? Not so. Some thoughts:

The typical Fortune 500 company spends only .83% of their annual revenue on travel, while the typical government and non-profit entity spends only .24%. Both according to JP Morgan. With revenues for SGM at $4,702,559, their travel budget should be about $11,286 to match other non-profits. They would have to spend $39,031 in travel to match the typical spending patterns of a Fortune 500 company. They spent $560,660.

Let’s unpack this a bit more and see how they compare to…let’s say…the Southern Baptist Convention.

The SBC in 2009 had a budget of $9,481,903. So did they spend a million, a million five? Nope, $68,901. That’s right, $68,901.

The SBC is an organization with a reported 45,764 churches in 2011.

People of SGM, and CLC for that matter, who spends about the same as SGM for travel. You are being fleeced in a monumental way. Demand some deeper accountability. There is no reason why this ministry, or CLC should be spending more than fourteen times of what Fortune 500 companies spend on travel. Or fifty two times more than the typical non profit spends in travel.

Just who’s in your wallet?”

Do we really think they need to be talking to folks about abortion and birth control, and homeschooling at this point? At any point? I swear if one of those dudes came up to me with that crap, I’d be like “Mannn, you need to get on outta my face with that crap. Are you for real?” Hmmm… I smell church discipline.

@ Sophie:

Oh God, Sophie! Let’s not bring up that hoe-bag Esther. She was a real tramp, I tell you. The way he described her, you’d think she was Kim Kardashian. I mean, I can just imagine Esther at the Red Door Spa everyday, getting her mani/pedi and hot stone massage. Then later on she slides over to Gabana in her Porsche coup to snatch up some threads fresh off the runway. Apparently, Mark tried to hit her up on her Blackberry but the king decided to upgrade her Beyonce style and bought her an android. Yeah, cause Esther WAS that shiznit and had her Boo on lock.

(if you want me to translate that, please see the urban dictionary or just ask ; )

Jeff S, recovering from a divorce is a difficult process I know, made even more difficult when children are involved. We go through the baggage and unpack things piece by piece. Some “items” are easy to catagorize and sort out. We can “put them away” and its in the past. Then we move on to the next thing.

I’ve discoverered there are things that remain uncatagorized. We won’t know where it goes. We can’t seem to make sense of it in such a way as to leave it behind, so it remains there, like a piece of clutter, causing a mess. And we keep coming back to it over and over, trying to figure it out. “Where does this go? How do I make sense out of this?” As long as its there its difficult to feel a sense of peace because it keeps bugging us and like clutter, it tends to attract more clutter.

From what you’ve shared in the past, you seem like the kind of guy that likes things put away, your baggage unpacked. Obviously there’s things that are still out there that are difficult and unresolved. You’re still in the process of healing and recovering from your divorce.

It appears your ex-wife was not supportive of you on many levels. Yet there’s a lot you did to support her. You managed the house. You gave her a baby. You worked to make her “feel” good. But it sounds like it got to be too much of a burden. She wasn’t there for you. And she wasn’t there enough for your child. Your church added to the burden and now you seem to be in need of a safe place to make sense of it all, in a home where youre loved and accepted. And with your marriage and the church never having been that place of refuge, its easy to feel alone, lost and adrift.

I don’t have the answers, but in the spirit of Christian fellowship, I want to encourage you. God is our refuge. Within a relationship of perfect acceptance, He can sort out our baggage and has the power to affect the natural course of things. He is our life, our living water, so I encourage you to draw often from Him. I hope this helps to strengthen you in some small way, and not as though you didn’t already know these things. I just know that God wants us to be encouraged everyday!

w

Caleb – “It strikes me as yet another example (and they are legion) of their idolatry of orthodoxy mixing with culturally loaded (and unacknowledged) assumptions that are read into ancient texts without justification to produce bizarre, misplaced priorities that become law. No, that was not a very well structured sentence.”

No, that was right on target. 🙂 I think every country has a habit of believing their culture to be the ‘default’ culture, just as children assume their parents’ way of doing things is the normal way of doing things. We approach Paul’s cultural assumptions with our own and then wonder why his epistles aren’t always very clear. Trouble is, pastors and preachers and Bible scholars are supposed to be clearing these things up, not muddying the waters.

..Oh, but Julie Anne, it ends with the sperm being caught in bed with another sperm…. (Now figure THAT one out)

@ Trina: LOLZ LOLZ LOLZ LOZL!!!

Numo–

I think I’m going to do an urban sermon translation blog. Driscoll’s Esther sermon might be my first. Somebody needs to clown these fools and all their shenanigans.

Whoops – did not mean to say that a very being is found in the body! I’m trying to get at the intimate/minute level at which this control is exercised.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
But my soul loooovessss fried chicken! Fried chicken for the soul, for everyone!

@ Julie Anne:
There are aspects of the Followers of Christ (this is the first I’ve learned of them) that are like my former church. We also had in-house lay midwives to attend births. While I’m sure the ministers would claim that they would never force anyone to use one of their midwives, we caught plenty of flack and derision for choosing to use outside State-certified midwives. (we were always told we were too independent) I shudder to think of the backlash had we chosen to see a doctor. I know of another couple who were disassociated when they decided to use a certified midwife instead of the church’s “midwives.” So when I begin to see the proponents of “militant fecundity” become more mainstream, and even try to gain a political foothold, I become alarmed at where this could all potentially lead to.

@ Sophie:
Having your Boo on lock, means that your significant other (your Boo) is so into you, that they aren’t going anywhere else, EVEN IF you told them to…. Not to the mall without you; not to the movies; not to the market. NOWHERE. They are on lock, as in lock down. We also call that being whipped. As in what you are giving this person is so good, they dont want anything else.

Apparently, Esther put it on him (performed extremely well sexually) so well that he chose her. In Driscoll’s mind, her performing so well sexually got her the gig to be a part of his band of ho’s (very sexually available women). I can only imagine the things that went on in Driscoll’s mind that he thinks Esther did. But his “Real Sex, oops, I meant Real Marriage book tells me that it was a whole list of things that my own little bit of modesty prevents me from typing out here, include doing ITWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED. (grasps my pearls and clutches my bag).

I do wonder if Driscoll is jealous that the king had more wimmins than he does–or had access, to do with them as he pleased without having to recognize their humanity.

I think he is jealous of the king. And I think he wants Esther….baaadddd… But Grace would object. After all, only lukewarm Christian women peform like that in bed… so he thinks.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
OMG!!! That is PRICELESS. I am done.

Trina–you misread me completely. But if you adamantly, for sure do not want a kid, are not willing to bear one if you get pregnant, then in my opinion you surely can find ways to find pleasure without having to kill a baby to do so.

Blunt, not politically correct, but they are not blobs of flesh, not fetuses, and they also should have the same rights you do.

That said, we don’t live in the bush. There are very effective means of birth control available. If more people used them, there wouldn’t be so many baby killings aka abortions. THAT was the point of my post.

And that said, people who truly don’t want a child can opt for abstinence, for sterilization, or for birth control understanding that if it fails, killing isn’t an option unless the life of the mother is truly at risk, or the baby has no chance anyway–such as ectopic pregnancies and horrific birth defects.

I believe those of us who are really pro life should be pushing birth control, not condemning it. Some forms of it we might condemn, but not birth control in general.

I do understand these are hot button issues. Some find any discussion of them as invading their privacy, and feel no one else can judge what they put in their vaginas, who they love, etc. I get that.

But in reproductive matters, there are three people to consider: the mom, the dad, and the baby. I can’t stand before God for you or anyone else regarding what goes on the bedroom.

But I can and will do everything in my power to hold all of us accountable to think before we copulate. If you cannot or will not have a baby if you conceive it, for heaven’s sake find a way to have your pleasure without killing a baby. Make that a matter of what you do, or what kind of birth control you use, but use good judgement.

Far too many today put their own right to pleasure first.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that is fair. So what about the child conceived and its right to pleasure?

I still firmly believe my son’s life was every bit as precious as his birth parent’s lives, pleasure, and reputations. The difference was he didn’t get to make the decisions that led to him. Had he been conceived just 3 months later, after Roe v Wade, his birth mom made it clear he would have been aborted.

BUT–they DID have choices. They could have abstained. They could have chosen to pleasure each other with methods that don’t lead to babies. They could have used birth control. For that matter, much as I appreciated being his adopted mom, they could have taken responsibility and been good parents themselves.

So yeah, unless you want a baby you shouldn’t be copulating at will without protection. And you should understand no birth control is 100% effect. Unless you are willing to accept the consequences, don’t play the game.

You won’t die from not having sex, but someone else might die if you have it without taking responsibility.

@ linda:  Who, exactly "put their rights to their own pleasure" first? I want to know.

Wow. There is so much to think about with this topic.

Linda wrote: “don’t “do it” if you absolutely refuse to have a baby.”

Just some thoughts on this statement. It sounds extreme but in many ways it is wise. If someone is in a situation where they are having sex and using birth control, it is still possible to get pregnant. I think most of us know some people who have been in this situation. I know I do.

Someone put up some statistics in a comment yesterday that nearly half of all people getting abortions have used some form of contraception during the month they conceived.
I think this is a major point to consider. Of course, many of these people probably didn’t use it perfectly and maybe some did. The point is that most forms of bc are not 100% effective. I truly think our cultural mentality that people can have consequence free sex is one of the reasons the abortion rate is so high. Abortion then becomes the answer to many when things don’t work out like they are supposed to. In many ways it is unfair when young people are told, you’ll be fine as long as you use “safe sex” and then they end up with very difficult decisions which are always life altering (abortion, adoption or raising a child when you don’t think you are able or ready).

About the hormonal forms of bc. I used hormonal methods for quite some time but eventually stopped using that method mainly b/c of reading about possible abortifacient qualities. I came to the point where I wasn’t comfortable with it anymore (as well as for a variety of other health reasons). I think the approach of the Christian Medical Dental Association is good. Try to get all of the factual info. out there for people to consider.

@ linda:

Let the one who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.

I read that once. Maybe you have, too.

Discuss.

@ linda:
Linda–

I didn’t misread you. I just disagreed with you. That’s all. You restated what you said above, and that is exactly what I understood you to have said. While I can appreciate your love for the lives of children, as I do myself, I think we would simply disagree on what a baby is and what our rights are as individuals to impede the rights of others. So it won’t matter to argue any points when we disagree fundamentally what consitutes a baby and what rights we have.

In addition, I think you are proposing abstinence and how people should have sex as a solution to a problem that affects everyone, including married people. Would you give married people this advice? Luckily for you, you want children. So these are methods and ways that you never really would have to consider for your LIFETIME as a viable adult who can have children. It makes sense to you to tell people to do that, but it is not YOUR LIFETIME that you are making those impositions on.

I am not completely against abortion, obviously, but do object, personally, to late term abortion. But that is MY PERSONAL CHOICE. Because I abhor the thought of someone doing that, doesn’t give me the right to tell people how and when or not to have sex. Why do you think you can impose something on others that God, Himself, has not imposed? Again, I ask the question: why do we feel the need to speak authoritatively on matters that God obviously has not?

It is not your job to hold everyone accountable. Neither is it your right.

@ numo:
In addition, rights to pleasure presents sex, which is complex (I know I keep saying that because of how it’s being reduced here), as something where the end desire is always pleasure. It is not. And sex can and should be pleasurable. But pleasure, again, is not always the goal of every person who has it. I think most of these fundys have sex NOT because of pleasure but JUST to produce kids. Now think on that.

Sometimes people have sex to heal. Sometimes sex can be sad and tearful, yet healing and bonding. There are many reasons why people have sex. But the only way we see sex is how we see it personally, in our own lives. So it is hard to convince another of the many realities that sex involves if they have a narrow view of it.

Arce wrote:

I think the only grace Driscoll has or has experienced is the one he sleeps with.

Haha!

@ Jill:
Jill–

Those are interesting statistics. I think that is a very common situation for many married people. There are so many “statistics” when it comes to things. I think often we have to go to the source of the research and see who’s funding it, what their leanings and beliefs are, etc… But think about this statistic too, my friend’s sister worked at an abortion clinic, and she said that a majority of their patients were married Christian women. I was appalled because I was just one of those Christians that never wanted anything to make Christianity look bad. I did ask her what were some of the reasons that women gave, and she said they varied, but for the most part, extramarital affairs, having too many kids already, not wanting a child, not wanting to have kids with the abusive husband they were with, with whom they could not turn down sexually, and many other things.

How women get into the position of a child being in their womb is so complex and varied. I can’t imagine being in a marriage that ends up being a bad and abusive marriage, and being abused if I turned my husband down. So I MUST have sex with him, and then I get pregnant and would not want to bring a child into this world with such a man. There are just no easy answers like Linda wants to propose. People only know what THEY know, what’s in THEIR world. This is a HUGE world. There are over, what? 9 Billion people on this planet. Do we really think we have insight into the mainstream? Really? There hardly is even a “mainstream” when it comes to that many people.

And I dont want to create a firestorm, but I think birth control and/or abortion should be made available to women in severely impovershed nations. Every time I look at tv and see the millions of starving babies in third world countries, it makes me wonder where is God? Why does he allow so many kids to be born who will starve to death? I am honest to say that it challenges my faith. It really does. Would God be angry at those women having abortions or using birth control vs. allowing them to live and then die very quickly from starvation? Who can propose to answer such questions BUT God! But here we are… trucking along trying our best and failing miserably.

@ Trina: I also think that – intentionally or not – this “pleasure” argument reduces sex to lust. As if love has nothing to do with it, or desire for closeness to another human being.

“For others to care for, or – all too often – no one at all.”

@ Trina: Indeed.

Meanwhile, while we focus so much on who can/can’t “legitimately” have sex/get pregnant, we ignore the pain of those who have difficult conceiving, along with all those who have – often through no real fault of their own – more children than they can handle.

We also ignore the pain and need of those who don’t know what to do for/with the kids they have – and that includes everything from parenting skills to not being able to feed and clothe those children.

@ Trina: This.

Listen, those who are poor and white – and there are a LOT of them! – can say the same thing. (Rural poverty is epidemic, and by no means is it confined to non-white people. Where I live, there are few people of color and pretty much all of the truly impoverished are white…)

Julie Anne wrote:

If they trust God to heal their vision, then why are they wearing glasses? I guess they get to use reasonable medical care for themselves so they can see, but to heck with their teen who had breathing difficulties and died at home, surrounded by “loved” ones in prayer. An antibiotic would have saved his life.

This is where ‘the free exercise thereof’ clause for religious liberty ends. They, or anybody else for that matter who infringes the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of another crosses the line. I bless Providence that our nation was birthed out the Enlightenment and not the medieval period.

@ numo:

Hmmm… like beating your teenagers or adult children? You were right when you said above that there are many people who check off all the boxes to fit this narrow paradigm, yet, not everyone who has kids should.

One day I was at an elder’s house (eons ago when I used to go to church), and his wife had come home with their toddler. She tells the father that he was bad and she had to spank him 3 times. So what does the dad do? He goes and spanks him because he was being bad to his mother. While I was there, this kid did other mischieveous things, but mainly nothing so bad that it would have made me loose patience with him (I happen to be very good with kids and very firm, yet patient), and he had at least 4 more spankings while I was there.

First, it was a very awkward situation for me. While this child was mischievous, he was also 3. So for me, that settled the reason why he was behaving the way he was. But in my mind, and learning this child’s personality, there were SO MANY other things these parents could have done that would have been far more effective than continuing to spank this child, WHICH WAS NOT WORKING. Parenting is difficult and extremely hard. Some of us, such as myself, have a natural knack for dealing with kids, and some people don’t.

I used to look at all the new moms at my church who got pregnant because it was the thing to do. It was evident in all the many tears shed because ‘I’m not pregnant yet, but I’ve only been married 2 weeks” laments. In addition, couples were always happy to let it be known that they were “trying” or never were “not trying” meaning that they never used birth control. But many of these women, most young, had never been around kids, and if so, not much practice. I was never judging them, but I did sense the difficulties they had were huge when it came to caring for their new borns, etc… My thought was that it’s a lot to be a newlywed and just married, and then have the pressure to conceive and be like everyone else. Then have to learn to be a mom at the same time too. Sometimes, babies just aren’t commonsense. And a lot of my knowledge I received from my mother and grand mother. I dont have kids, yet my friends call me often for stuff and I’m like yeah, just do this. Nope, dont do that. And they’re like HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS STUFF! I learned it all. I have had women in my family who taught me well. BUt not every girl has that. And as much as the women in the church leaned on each other, often it was the blind leading the blind. So you have a heaping lot of awkward mothers doing crazy stuff or being silly because there was no guidance, all because (1) birth control was looked down upon, and (2)you should start a family as soon as possible.

There is no room in Christian Culture for people to be people.

@ numo:

You are right, Numo. And they were included in that lot, because they are NOT priviledged. Trust me, I lump those people in with the rest of minorities too. My friend’s dad grew up in WV near Beckley. He said they lived in a shack on the side of a mountain. They were extremely poor. At one point, the government came in and made the families move, put them in project housing in Norfolk and put them on welfare and food stamps, etc… It’s crazy that when you drive through Appalacia (which is nearby, you know it, you’ve lived here), you can still see that and there are A LOT of people still living like that…even with outhouses, etc…

@ Phoenix:
Phoenix,

It seems that pastors hate waitresses this week! hahaha

@ Trina: I am living in a slightly more northern part of Appalachia; one that doesn’t get talked about in the media.

There is a *lot* of poverty, though it’s less obvious than, say, in some of the old coal-mining towns south of the Mason-Dixon line, if only because the population density in some of those old company towns is greater.

Again, though… I don’t hear people talking about the loss of jobs/poverty that happened in the (former) steel towns out near Pittsburgh, but that, too, is very real. (Company towns all.) It isn’t just Southerners who sold their souls to the company store…

*

another point: nobody has brought up the issue of rape in marriage, so I’m going to.

What about men who rape their wives? And pregnancies that result from marital rape?

@Trina, I completely agree. It’s notable that although Ms. Bell says her heart is broken and has “apologized” the waitress is still apparently out of a job.

dee wrote:

Haitch/Pam

Given the easy accessibility of birth control in your countries, what is the abortion rate in your respective countries.

Dee, being an MBA number cruncher you might like this, as that’s actually not a straight forward question. I don’t believe there is national data available, but the figure is estimated to be around 90,000.

Explanation of data used here: http://aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442467790

and here

http://www.preru.unsw.edu.au/PRERUWeb.nsf/page/ps17

which states:

Estimated number of induced abortions in Australia

These data are presented in more detail in Chapter 3

Overall, the estimated number of induced abortions in Australia in 2003 was 84,218. The rate of induced abortion was 19.7 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years.
Residents of Major cities accounted for the highest number of induced abortions (excluding induced abortions carried out in Western Australia) (57,727, 76.2%). The age-standardised rate per 1,000 women was highest in Major cities (19.3 per 1,000 women) and lowest in Very remote areas (6.7 per 1,000 women).
The number of induced abortions was highest for women aged 20–24 years (21,826, 25.9%). The age-specific induced abortion rates per 1,000 women aged 15–44 were highest for the 20–24 year age group (32.7 induced abortions per 1,000 women aged 20–24 years) and lowest for the 40–44 year age group (6.7 induced abortions per 1,000 women aged 40–44 years).

For a comparison (but much older data) between contraception and abortion, see http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442459101

Births and fertility level explanations in Australia for 2012:
http://abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1301.0Main+Features512012

Pregnancy statistics (older data)
http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442459242

Family Planning Queensland explanation:
http://www.fpq.com.au/pdf/abortion_statistics.pdf

Research by Marie Stopes, two dot points cut and pasted below:
http://mariestopes29-px.rtrk.com.au/images/stories/libraryfiles/Real-Choices-Key-Findings.pdf

• The finding that 60% of women were using at least
one form of contraception at the time of their
unplanned pregnancy, together with the finding that
the largest group of women using contraception
were on the pill (43%) suggests: the need to increase
the current range of contraceptive options in
Australia; invest in research to improve contraceptive
efficacy; and implement a dedicated education
campaign on the importance of correct contraceptive
use.
• Of the women who did use contraception, those
using more than one method were more likely than
non-users or users of only one method to choose
abortion when faced with an unplanned pregnancy.
This finding suggests that many women who are
clear they do not want to have a child go to significant
effort to avoid pregnancy, though these efforts are
not always successful.

My daughter is having many many health problems, and she takes birth control pills, amongst other things, to regulate her cycles (at the moment it is not working out). As far as I know she is not sexually active. Do I need to explain this to people? I shouldn’t have to. The people in my former church would have been highly critical of our treatments. Don’t criticize the actions of others until you have walked a mile in their shoes.

If I had a twitter account, I would ask Sproul, Mohler, etc… the following question: What is a couple supposed to do when the woman is on medications that would cause horrible birth defects (ie methotrexate)? Methotrexate is a part of the treatment protocol for diseases like Rheumatoid Arthritis, Ankylosing Spondylitis, Crohn’s Disease and other auto-immune diseases. When I was on methotrexate as part of my arthritis treatment, my doctor would not hand me the prescription until I agreed to either take birth control pills or sign a waiver promising not to sue him for any birth defects. I choose to abstain from sex but boy did I feel like I had taken on a huge burden when I signed that waiver. I don’t want to be rude or hurt anyone’s feelings, but children are both a blessing and a burden. And there are some people who just are not created (and we are all created in the image of God according to the Bible) to bear children or raise them. Sometimes our bodies just don’t match the ideal as promoted by the Duggarites.

As for spacing of pregnancies, in an ideal world there would be a minimum of 18 months between the end of one pregnancy and the beginning of another. This allows the woman’s body to heal and rebuild itself to properly sustain the next pregnancy. This also reduces the risk of maternal hemorrhage and other placenta problems. My cousin is a nurse in a labor and delivery ward and she always requests extra blood when she has a patient with closely spaced pregnancies. She has taught me that one should err on the side of the mother’s health.

@ VelvetVoice:
VelvetVoice–

It didn’t work for me either. I’m not sure if you have done so, but if there is a doctor in your town that practices both hollistic and western medicine, it may help to find one that deals specifically with women’s issues. I’ve done a sort of chellation to get certain chemicals and things out of my body; in addition, I am taking Calcium d-glucarate. It metabolizes excess estrogen in the body. But she will need to be tested to see if she is producing too much estrogen, and if it is being metabolized. They do a stool test (sorry for the feint of heart in this forum). But if there is excess estrogen that is still in the bowel, then it is not being properly metabolized and is recycling as a toxin.

I also had a test done to find out what my inflammation markers were, as inflammation can show up by having fibroids, heavy periods, etc… I found out that I am allergic to wheat and dairy (no surprise). My throat gets sore every time I eat either. And a few other things. Cutting these things out of my diet, taking fish oil religiously, and the Calcium D has completely changed my cycles. The pain is minimal and I am able to pop about 200mg of Ibuprophen or tylenol if needed, whereas before, I would have to take 1200mg every three hours. Sometimes, I would have to go to emergency care and get the real strong meds to knock me out, or take muscle relaxers. How is that quality of life? And how is that good for a person long term?

Unfortunately, I have to pay out of pocket, but it has been worth it. My doc spent 3 hours with me on my first visit, and I have never talked about myself so much. I wanted to hug this woman!

Warwick wrote:

Warwick

Hmmm, Cornerstoners, they’re ringing a dim bell. I grew up in a house with Above Rubies, so I must be a disappointment being “deliberately barren”.

numo wrote:

That’s true of many other so-called “Rust Belt” cities. When heavy industry folded, people were left with little-nothing in the way of new jobs.

And the solution for that (from my Rust Belt contacts) was CASINOS! CASINOS! CASINOS! Every city a new Las Vegas or Atlantic City! SLOTS! SLOTS! SLOTS! Unicorns farting rainbows and free ice cream for everybody!

My parents retired to Bullhead City, just across the Colorado River from the Vegas wanna-be of Laughlin. I’ve seen what casino towns are like when you step away from the glitz of CASINOS CASINOS CASINOS, and it isn’t pretty.

“…Chelsea, who earns $3.50 an hour…” WHAT??!! Surely a mistake? That’s barely a third of what I got as a waitress and I thought I was scraping by on minimum wage. I can’t believe employers are allowed to pay that kind of wage in the USA – really?

Trina wrote:

I used to look at all the new moms at my church who got pregnant because it was the thing to do. It was evident in all the many tears shed because ‘I’m not pregnant yet, but I’ve only been married 2 weeks” laments.

As in come back from the honeymoon and the parents start asking “Where’s Our Grandchildren?”

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Unicorns farting rainbows and free ice cream for everybody!

OMG! This just made me pee a little. I love it. hahahahaah!

@ dee:

Simply that miscarriages happen naturally, or “for no discernible reason.”

…and there’s a Trina AND a Tina here…

gyn, that is…

@ Numo:

“AIDS (spread primarily by heterosexual sex) has devastated many African countries.”

I was told by people from a visiting Ugandan children’s choir that if AIDS continues at its current rate in that country, the native Ugandan population will eventually either be 100% infected or die out (I can’t remember which). (Apparently the infiltration of American Christians isn’t doing much to stop the problem…)

@ Hester: They’ve been pushing for abstinence-only “education” in Uganda for years, probably a couple of decades now.

Unfortunately, the higher-ups in government are listening. (It’s a democracy in name only.)

@ Sophie: I think that’s also why the standard here is (mostly) 15%, although tips are *supposed* to be shared with busboys, dishwashers, et. al. – that’s often more theoretical than actual, though.

for over 18 years, Uganda has had an ABC program: Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms. It was very successful for many years until the religious conservatives got there and killed the C part. Family were there as missionaries in the ’70s and ’80s, and still make trips there to help with “true love waits” programs and the like. The Museveni family were very supportive of the ABC program for years.

I meant to say that killing the “C” part is something that, to the best of my knowledge, the Musevenis have also been involved in.

We have done our very best (i.e., our worst!) to try and remake Uganda into an African Republic of Gilead (see The Handmaid’s Tale) with horrible results.

@ Nickname: We’re even more specifically programmed to emulate Leave it To Beaver and Ozzie and Harriet.

imo, at least.

http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=21298

AL Mohler on the sin of deliberate childlessness

@ Trina:
…and Haitch, my sister gained 30 lbs taking Mirena in like two months. She looked like the Goodyear blimp and looked completely uncomfortable as if her body was filled with fluid. I didn’t recognize her when I had seen her. She has had a hard time loosing that weight ever since. I”m glad you went to see another doc. I had left that first docs office crying. I was like wow, this is what medical care is like in our country??? And I have GOOD insurance. Damn!

@ Nickname:
Nickname, thank you for that. It was really insightful. That begs the question: Are all one-parent homes broken homes? If a spouse dies, is that home broken? If so, then God broke it, right? You are right, that term is not fair, neither is it the reality for some or more than some. There are very happy, love-filled homes where there is only one parent. I am a single woman, one day I could adopt. I doubt that I would have a “broken” home. I’m sure a child would see it as a home, especially if they didn’t have one to begin with.

@ Tina:
Tina, I wanted to go back and address your comment. I am sorry it was much later in this thread, but I didn’t want you to feel ignored by what you shared.

Those are tons of burdens that you have… All of those “what-if’s”. But it is totally unfair to you. You seem like a very honorable woman. One who wanted to choose what was best for her, and trying to plan for and have a family when you were ready. Your son having autism could be so many things; things of which I believe are and were entirely out of your control. It is good that you waited for marriage and that marriage did come. But even if you didn’t, why would a good God punish you in such a way?

It seems that you feel that many of your decisions have caused pain and/or suffering and punishment from God to you. My heart goes out to you because I used to be riddled with guilt about everything too. It was like a perfect math equation, where A + B = C, and at any time if I changed one of those variables, I got punished.

God simply wouldn’t be loving if he punished you for doing your best. There’s so much you dont have to apologize for and aren’t held to, yet, you are right, it is weighing on you. But in the end, you really answered your own question: The more you hear from the Christian culture/religion on these issues, the more guilt you have.

If Christ came to give us life, but not condemn us, and if what you are listening to is purporting to be the voice of Christ, then something is wrong. Would you heap all that guilt on your own kid? Would you make your child feel as if there was no room to learn, to decide, to grow, to come into his own? Aren’t you patient with him? Loving? Forgiving? More lenient and gracious, than demanding and harsh?

Why would you be a better loving and gracious and merciful parent than God? In my most humble opinion, stop listening to the church and find God’s voice for yourself. If He is who he says he is, then he has GOT to give his children room to grow, explore, and room to understand and come into their own. Any good parent really owes it to their children to do so. And now that you’re a parent, I am sure you understand what that truly looks like and what it means.

Just know that God is immesurably a greater parent than you will ever be, and I mean that in a good way. So know that He is patient with you; that he delights in you; that he is encouraging to you; and that he doesn’t have you under a microscope ready to stomp on you with every wrong turn you make. Bless you.

@ Caleb W:
Spot on.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

“The church should insist that the biblical formula calls for adulthood to mean marriage and marriage to mean children. This reminds us of our responsibility to raise boys to be husbands and fathers and girls to be wives and mothers.”
And here you have it. The patriarchal/Quiverful mantra has indeed hit the mainstream.

Let’s not forget that the pro-Patriarchy folks also have serious issues with singles and especially singles who remain single for too long. They’ve even got a movie out about it (http://goo.gl/xfojs) Now keep in mind, patriarchal fathers should be finding their daughters proper spouses (courtship), but for some strange reason, a lot of these dads keep their adult daughters at home to “serve” him and then they complain about guys staying single for too long. OY – did they forget that they have been contributing to the “problem?”

They also must have this passage removed from their Bible or else they have the PFQ Bible version (Patriarchal Full-Quiver) “But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. 33 But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife. 34 There is[a] a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. 35 And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction.”

@ Sophie:
“As for mandatory marriage – I seem to recall a prominent and much admired figure in Christian history who didn’t get married… now, what was his name…?”
🙂 I thought the same thing. And, you’re right that selfishness/unselfishness has nothing to do with being married or unmarried. All of us can probably find various examples in our own lives to fit either combination.

@ Julie Anne:
I think that’s why it’s becoming clearer all the time that this is not really about Biblical teaching but about an agenda. I’ll even go out on a limb and say a political agenda. Maybe not for all, but for some I think it is.

Julie Anne wrote:

Let’s not forget that the pro-Patriarchy folks also have serious issues with singles and especially singles who remain single for too long.

Because if they’re single, they’re not doing their part Outbreeding the Heathen.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
HUG–

I think they are just jealous that some of us singles are having pretty fantastic lives and dont necessarily always want the reponsibilities of marriage and family; which is A-OK in my book. So while he’s changing poopy diapers, Mohler is mad that I am at some swank bar in my neighborhood, eating wonderful delicious lamb chops, while drinking a large icy brew. And then I might go home and see what the Dowager Countess is up to on Downton Abbey. Yes, Mohler. I know you hate me.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

And the after-church crowd are notoriously cheap tippers. (Jerry Falwell was said to deliberately tip big in an attempt to make up for that.) Don’t add insult to injury with one of those fake $100 bill Gospel Tracts for a tip. Or lectures against Working on the Sabbath.

HUG, when I was a student all the students at my church used to go out for lunch after church. This meant anywhere between 10 and 20+ people crowding into the same pub all of a sudden, on a busy Sunday. Like lots of students who go to pubs for lunch we hardly ever left a tip, or we left a measly one. Maybe that would be excusable if there was just a few of us. But a big crowd? Not OK. My 21st birthday fell on a Sunday so as an informal celebration I booked a table for 10 for lunch at my favourite cafe. I assumed that we’d do what we usually did and break up into smaller groups, and my closest friends would go for my birthday lunch. Instead, as it was my birthday, everyone decided to pile on. 27 of us turned up at this busy cafe for this booking of 10, half of whom barely knew me. The owner’s face turned white. I was so embarrassed. When they started singing ‘Happy Birthday’ at me I wanted to curl up and cry with shame. Funny how this kind of stuff happens both sides of the Atlantic. I think maybe an annual sermon or two about Sunday lunch etiquette should be standard in western churches.

Hester wrote:

I was told by people from a visiting Ugandan children’s choir that if AIDS continues at its current rate in that country, the native Ugandan population will eventually either be 100% infected or die out (I can’t remember which). (Apparently the infiltration of American Christians isn’t doing much to stop the problem…)

They’re too busy fighting the Culture War against Teh Fags.

HUG–

I love this part about the Handmaid’s Tale from Wiki: It was founded by a racist, homophobic, Christian nativist, theocratic-organized military coup as an ideologically driven response to the country’s ecological, physical and social degradation.

THAT told me ALLLLL I need to know.

I would be remiss if I did not add that Margaret Atwood is one of Canada’s national treasures. And she lives in my great city of Toronto!

Great book.

@ Julie Anne:
That trailer you linked to is disturbing on so many levels. But the most obvious issue I have is that the very religion that they claim is in danger from “singleness” was begun by . . . a single man.

So far on this thread there has been no discussion about male contraception (or did I miss it?). What’s wrong with vasectomies? Does every male HAVE to produce biological progeny? C’mon guys, wake up, step up (to the plate), and become mature & responsible.

One thing I haven’t seen addressed yet (maybe I just missed it) is the question of what the Bible means when it says that the woman’s “pain in childbearing” would be increased.

I have heard that a more faithful interpretation of this verse implies that sin has tainted the entire process of childbearing to make the whole experience more complicated than it was ideally intended to be–leading many to speculate if the *frequency* of childbirth that healthy women are capable of could be part of that burden?

If this were the case, it would really fly in the face of people who say that it’s “wrong” to space or control children…because how do we know that the current state of a human woman’s fertility is the original divine design?

There’s no way to know for sure, but it sure does bring some things into question, doesn’t it?

After child 2, I had the V. Wife was unable to take BCPs (interfered with seizure meds), IUDs were iffy at the time. We had had unprotected sex three months and had had three pregnancies (first two ended with 3rd month miscarriages, which we were told were God’s way of dealing with what would have been a child with birth defects, but none were identified). The 4th one took more time, a few months after we quit avoiding getting pregnant. So after several months I had the procedure. Uncomfortable for a couple of days, but otherwise non-remarkable, but resulting in a great improvement in our sex life, including a great increase in spontaneity. I recommend it.

Tina wrote:

Sophie wrote:

@ BeenThereDoneThat:
His notion that having a child makes you less selfish is not true.

I also remember reading in Tim LaHaye’s The Act of Marriage that if a couple decided not to have children, they were excluding a potential child from the possibility of salvation.

And I also remember thinking, after reading that, “What guarantee is there that that child will grow up to be Christian?”

Exactly! It’s also possible that the time and effort and energy you put into raising a kid who turns into a non-Christian might well have gone to better use if you had chosen to spend your life preaching and converting non-Christians.

And if not having children is depriving a potential child from salvation then surely everybody ought to get married and pregnant as soon as they are legally allowed to, otherwise they are depriving potential children of salvation?

Totally baffles me that grown men and women can come up with this junk and apparently sincerely believe it.

I just have to comment on one more thing that I simply cannot take. The MEN in the partiarchal camp are so hung up on “militant fecundity” or having as many babies as possible…and of course nursing, homeschooling, etc….that I wonder how far and how long this would all last IF the men pushing it had to go through labor ONCE, of course a natural birth, without an epidural, and then continue to nurse, have more soon, stay perpetually pregnant and keep the house clean. It’s enough to make any woman want to cry. Or go to bed. Without the husband.

Be careful about reading all of the side effects and assuming they are (1) common or (2) real. Any report by a physician that two events occurred together and one was taking that drug gets reported as a side effect. Keep in mind that co-occurrence does not prove causation. I itch more if outdoors in the evening, but the evening does not cause the itch, it is the mosquito! It is similar to the idea that correlation does not prove causation. The rules require all of the co-occurrences be reported as side effects.

Sophie wrote:

“…Chelsea, who earns $3.50 an hour…” WHAT??!! Surely a mistake? That’s barely a third of what I got as a waitress and I thought I was scraping by on minimum wage. I can’t believe employers are allowed to pay that kind of wage in the USA – really?

The way it works is that you take the base $3.50/hr plus tips and if it works out to less than minimum wage the employer has to pony up the difference to make it up as minimum wage. Employers use it as a way to see who’s “good” or not. If they have to pony up very often you’ll likely be fired.

@ justabeliever:

“The MEN in the partiarchal camp are so hung up on ‘militant fecundity’ or having as many babies as possible…and of course nursing, homeschooling, etc….that I wonder how far and how long this would all last IF the men pushing it had to go through labor ONCE, of course a natural birth, without an epidural, and then continue to nurse, have more soon, stay perpetually pregnant and keep the house clean.”

And in my experience, Christian homeschool dads who end up getting divorced are convinced that homeschooling is “God’s will” until they have to pay enough child support to cover the costs of their ex-wife staying home to do it…and then suddenly they demand that the children be put in public school.

Just to be inclusive: The Catholic Rite of Marriage rubrics include these directions and this question from the priest to both the man and woman (below):

“(The following question may be omitted if, for example, the couple is advanced in years.)”

Will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

Of course, the only correct answer is “We will” or “We do.” I understand most Catholics are not outright ever told to breed, breed, breed in as direct terms as maybe some Protestant leaders tell their flocks, but the subtle pressure is indeed there. Unless one is “for example,” “advanced in years.” Whatever that age might be.

@ Trina: heeheehee!

The dowager countess would have a few zingers for him…

@ BeenThereDoneThat: In all honesty, I believe they are practicing a very different religion and jsut recycling some of the same names.

@ Tina: There are some serious problems with/in that book by LaHaye.

I remember that in one of the early editions, he actually said that women should not seek to be in “on top” positions because it meant that they were not submitting properly to their husbands. And so on.

That little gem was removed from later editions, presumably after he got a flurry of irate letters and phone calls…

Muff, My brother had the V done 20 years ago after their 2 children. The nurses gave him chocolates and balloons. :o)

@ Mary:Thank you for describing that Mary, you have my sympathy. Sexually, I think it was a harsh regime. It sent a shudder up my spine.

And beyond Eire’s shores, pre-pill I think it was this way for many, yes?

The Catholic Church denying access to contraception in the Philippines and South America is just cruel.

And ConfusedbutHopeful’s comment about the Catholic Rites of Marriage rubrics just made me think of an unmarried priest with possible arrested development doling out marriage advice. Sorry to say it like that but I think marriage and celibacy should be a choice and not a requirement by your employer who gets the benefits of that (until they get sued).

Original post:

[a.] If one is Neo Calvinist in perspective, why does having lots of children guarantee that all those children are “elect?”

[b.] Where in the Bible does it say to evangelize by having babies?

As for part [A]:

They don’t. As I’ve remarked before on another thread, back when I was questioning this and seriously weighing the merits of Calvinism, I read about T.U.L.I.P., and I e-mailed Calvinists to ask about their beliefs.

The main responses I kept getting from Calvnists were:

1. nobody can ever know for sure (until they die) if they’re the elect;

2. those writing me (who seemed a little arrogant about it) is that they know that they know that they and their children, spouse, and immediate family are most certainly the elect; or

3. if you’re even remotely interested in your soul being saved/ heaven/ salvation / not going to hell, this is evidence you are one of the elect (because non elect/unsaved people don’t care about this stuff).

Point [B.].
This is one point that older, unmarried Christian singles point out in their literature:

Much of American Christianity have elevated the old fashioned nuclear family model (married couple with children) to the point that churches act like married people with kids are more important than childless couples, the never married, divorced, and widows, or anyone else who doesn’t fit the “married with kids” demographic.

Many such churches act like that only way to “grow” the church in numbers is for people to get married and have a lot of children (they also encourage Christian teens to get married immediately right out of high school), but Christ taught that His church would be increased through spreading the Good News.

Increasing God’s people via physical pro-creation was Old Testament methodology. That was done away with by Christ’s emphasis on spiritual family taking precedence over flesh and blood family in the New Testament (you are to love Christ more than your husband, kids, mom, or grandma – He said that. Do most churches today live this out? No).

What happens when Christians fixate on people getting married and having kids is that no true sense of community is created in that particular church body, and widowed, unmarried, divorced, homosexual, or childfree / childless people feel excluded (and are indeed excluded – it’s not just in their heads).

Churches become too inward-focused, about meeting the needs of “the family,” rather than in helping any and all members of the body of Christ that need help.

Trina wrote:

Daisy said the other day that people should just keep their legs shut and wait ’til marriage like her. I would say to Daisy, there is no “until” for many. Many people will never marry. Are you saying that they should never ever experience the closeness, love and intimacy of another simply because they have never found a spouse? … Daisy’s ability to remain chaste until she is married will be severely challenged when or if it should happen that she will never marry. If she is lucky to have a mild libido, then that may be very well doable for her.

Whoa, whoa, you made a lot of assumptions about me and put words in my mouth I never said. I have sexual desires like anyone else. I don't recall ever saying I have a "low libido" – I don't have a raging one, but that's not the same as it being low or non existent. I'm in my early 40s and have never married and may never be married.

I have gone without sex for this long, so have other Christians who are over the age of 30. We exist. We're out there. It's not impossible to go without.

By the way, I was in a long term relationship in my late 20s / early 30s, so I had opportunities to have sex. But I told my ex up front what my values are, and we did not have sex, even though we spent time alone.

@ Daisy: yes, you exist, and so do i.

but it is HELLA tough for most of us – because we want connection with another person.

however, there are times that it’s better to burn rather than marry. marrying to have sex is a recipe for disaster, every single – pun intended – time.

it’s not all about sex!

@ Daisy: I have a question for you: have you chosen to be celibate because you feel that this is the right thing to do? Or have you done it because you feel like it was anon-negotiable rule, and that if you weren’t celibate, there would be consequences? (From both God and others.)

Or have you felt that Cod would not love you if you did not keep the rules?

I have wrestled with all of this in my own life, and here’s my conclusion: it *is* a choice, and it’s up to every person to make – or ot make. I do not see Jesus preaching about keeping rules as a cardinal virtue; neither did he seem to go around preaching about the value of celibacy in a world where virtually everyone (except for those who were enslaved) was married and where not getting married was to be on the fringe at best.

I do not see Paul – who was celibate – telling people that they have to live this way or else.

funny thing about that – God loves us enough to not want us to be forced to live by a set of rules. He loves us enough to want us to be free to choose.

And he also loves the whole wide world enough to have been pretty clear that one thing he doesn’t want us to do is to go out and force what we believe to be right on others.

That’s different than having certain moral and ethical standards in society – very much so.

I suspect it’s more than likely that you could seek out a country where these kinds of rules were law. but I don’t think you’d really want to live there.

I guess one thing I really want to say is that there are a lot of people who are single (for whatever reason) and not sexually active – again, for whatever reason. While I realize that people in the church – and in broader society – can and do sometimes say and do hurtful things toward those who are single and celibate, I think that there are also lots of people out there who would be accepting so long as they know that 1. it’s your free choice and 2. you are clear that – for others as for you – it is a choice.

For myself, I am concerned that some people (not saying you) seem to feel that if they keep all the rules, God will automatically reward them by giving them X (whether that’s marriage, a better job, a promotion, a chance to go to Disneyland – whatever).

Life doesn’t work that way – not for anyone.

A lot of the married people you know might be experiencing deep pain and sorrow in their marriages. They might be very lonely in their marriage – God knows, lots of people are. But… those folks might look like the perfect spouse, married to another perfect spouse, from the outside.

a lot of married people with kids envy the freedom that single people have.

it cuts both ways, Daisy. I hope you can see your way clear to feeling free to be who you are, right now, regardless of what people in and out of church say and think – or, conversely don’t say or think – about you and your state in life.

For myself, I’ve been finding that learning to be happy with myself has led me to being more content with my state in life (in my 50s and single) than I’d ever have dreamed possible a scant few years ago.

Does that mean everything is perfect in my life? By no means!

But it does meant aht I’ve learned a lot about enjoying my own company, and knowing that I don’t need some sort of church-awarded merit badge in order to know that I am loved and valued by God.

of course, part of that has involved my no longer being involved in churches where that kinds of social pressure is the norm.

and it takes time to chart a new course. I hope you will allow that, for both yourself and for others.

^^and I think the above can’t be argued on exceptions. I don’t know if some get just how powerful sex really is… Leg crossing is a really nice idea, I applaud it as a choice, but I think it’s unrealistic and unable to be adhered to by most. Practically speaking.

@ Mary:

“I remember attending a Christian ( Evangelical) conference in the early 80s where a Pastor offered to buy condoms and smuggle them accross the border for any married couple who needed them as they were not readily available in the Republic of Ireland at that time.”

Wow! I seriously wonder if conservative evangelicals (at least in America) nowadays would do that. They’ve hung their collective hat on abstinence-only sex-ed so profoundly.

numo wrote:

@ Tina: There are some serious problems with/in that book by LaHaye.
I remember that in one of the early editions, he actually said that women should not seek to be in “on top” positions because it meant that they were not submitting properly to their husbands. And so on.
That little gem was removed from later editions, presumably after he got a flurry of irate letters and phone calls…

I must not have read an earlier version, because in the version I read, there were four sexual positions listed, and “wife on top” was one of them.

sad observer wrote:

One thing I haven’t seen addressed yet (maybe I just missed it) is the question of what the Bible means when it says that the woman’s “pain in childbearing” would be increased.
I have heard that a more faithful interpretation of this verse implies that sin has tainted the entire process of childbearing to make the whole experience more complicated than it was ideally intended to be–leading many to speculate if the *frequency* of childbirth that healthy women are capable of could be part of that burden?

I think you are on to something here. The obvious is the actual pain of giving birth, but if you consider this passage along side the curse of the ground it makes sense that there is something bigger going on here. You have women who want to get pregnant but can’t, and women who don’t want to but do and can’t seem to stop it, miscarriage, birth defect, maternal death, etc etc and all this exacerbated by the power struggle with men. As the curse for Adam was an inability to fully subdue the earth the parallel is women not having full control over their own fertility and it has actually become a burden instead.

In addition, a persons libido does come into play whether or not they can keep such a life long commitment. People are made very differently Daisy. It is unfair to think that everyone is made like you or has the ability to abstain for a lifetime. Most people don’t. Sexuality is complex and is not one size fits all. I realize that there are personal things about my own makeup that aided in my ability to be chaste for so long. It was pre than just avoiding hell or that I had some uncanny ability to obey God in a way that most weren’t.

@ Trina: Yes indeed!

Daisy, I myself am a virgin in my late 30’s . Trine, this is not because I think that God will love me more this way, but for two reasons:
1) I believe that sexual cleanness is right in God’s eyes for men and women. That is what the new Testament teaches. Trina say a man’s virginity is never mentioned in scriptures, but 1 Cor 7:25-26 and I think :36 too(but it seems :36 is badly translated, making the :36 virgin a she in English when the text has no “she” in Greek) mention male virginity.
No NT text blame anyone for losing virginity – I think I know why – but many tell Christians to stay away from immorality, and these have no focus on being for one gender.
2) I know myself. Physical intimacy with a man who don’t want to be intimate on a heart and head level will make me feel lonelier than ever.
About 3 years ago, a guy visited me and tried to get my attention. I tried to get to know him, as a human, better. He said nothing. I tried to tell him what make me tick. He was not interested. Going on dates with him was an exercise in feeling lonely in company. He SMSed me: When can we get more serious?
I wanted to tell him that I’ve been trying to get serious with him for weeks, to make heart and mind connections. But he simply did not want to get serious. Or laughing – emotionally and mentally playing around – for that matter.
He want me to get serious (and playful) physically when he is unable/unwilling to connect on any other level?
I cannot agree with Trina’s question to Daisy: “Many people will never marry. Are you saying that they should never ever experience the closeness, love and intimacy of another simply because they have never found a spouse? ”
I cannot see how sex with someone who does not care about the real me, who does not want to stay with me till death do us part, will give me true “closeness, love and intimacy”.
Trina, as for the question you asked me:

“Why do you think it is normal and right for your religious leaders to tell you what to do with the most sacred spaces in your life? … I think people need to start pushing people out of their private spaces and personal sanctuaries. It simply isn’t for others to decide any of these things for me.”

I do not think religious leaders could decide these things for me. But you cannot argue, in one place on this thread, how people need closeness and intimacy and elsewhere that we should push people out of our intimate spaces. We should trust a few close people – at least one – with our secrets, desires, bodily problems, etc. Not because we allow others to dictate, but because we need people who care, and the opinion (not rules) of others could give us valuable insight.
You probably mean the two in different context, but an intimacy that endorses sex but pushes people out of intimate details of life don’t sound right.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

there are some very Godly™ men and great Bible Teachers™ who find the prospect of five days without sex so distressing that they are compelled to subject their wives to physical pain and humiliation rather than deny themselves.

These guys – ugh – brain bleach – I really don’t want to get inside their minds and work out where they are coming from or why they think they have blue balls, or what planet they’re on. They’re deviants in the true sense of the word. Also, they’re very naive if they think there’ll be no calling to account for their behaviour at some time in their marriage. Women are not passive ‘serving’ monoliths. If these men had any intelligence they’d be on their knees begging their wives’ forgiveness, making amends and ensuring the end of their severe sexually demanding behaviour. But you don’t do that in Calvinista-land.

Trina wrote:

I know that I am a minority here with my beliefs, but I am there and comfortably so. Thank you, though, for your response. I do pray that you will meet your husband soon. I understand what it is like to desire marriage very deeply.

No you are not alone Trina. Your beliefs are not in a minority, and I’ll wager that many more Christians than you think harbor them privately but wouldn’t dare and voice them for fear of censure and ostracism. I’ll choose reason and a pragmatic common sense to issues like these rather than religious dogma any day.

I know I'm new here, but I wanted to make a comment going back to the health of the mom and baby when a mom has one after another after another, when a mother has several children in a row, this severely taxes her adrenal glands. It's pretty well-known that the baby takes from the mom everything that the baby needs. The only exception that is known is adrenal support. The mother actually will take adrenal support from the baby. So, now you have a young mom who has several small children to take care of, no sleep, exhaustion beyond measure, now she has a very fussy baby that also won't sleep and isn't calmed easily.

And she's expected to get pregnant again really soon. I just want to tell these young moms (and their husbands) that this isn't the way God created us. Pregnancy is hard on a mom's body. We need rest in between children, not just for our own selves, but also for the tiny little ones that depend upon us for life and health. We were created for so much more than just breeding!!

I'm sorry, I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I have so many friends that are still in that lifestyle, and well, I hurt for them.

Trina – Muff Potter – Numo – yes from me too. One day I might put my values/opinions/experiences out there, it’s not open forum stuff for me really.

kindakrunchy – great moniker and expressed so well. I know of one culture that has 4 years between babies, meaning over 3 years without sex. It can be done. I feel sadness too for those tired, worn-out mothers, and their families.

@ Muff Potter: muff, thank you. I appreciate your insight as well as your honesty. It is refreshing.

A word of clarification is in order here. I never meant to say or imply that abstinence only/and or conservative evangelical sexual mores are off base or invalid. If they work for you, than fine & so be it, I can fully respect your beliefs and the dictates of your conscience. The only problem I have is when some devout Christian folk say that they MUST APPLY TO ALL regardless, with no mitigating factors.

Muff – I get you.

Also, I am SO not in favour of theocracies.

@Nick, rather than becoming a cliche, can only hope the term ‘Park Fiscal’ becomes redundant… I feel a wee bit harsh saying that, because I realise it’s a real person I’m talking about, and weirdly enough I actually feel quite sorry for him. So here’s hoping the ministry or its damaging parts become redundant, and PF gets an opportunity in his life to grow up.