Welcome back to the Christian Teen Forums. We have been upgrading our forum software and it took a lot longer than originally anticipated. Thank you for your patience.

We are still working to bring some add-on features back, so it will be a continued work-in-progress. If you have any questions, feel free to post and ask away. 

SavedByTheSon

Is the withdrawal method a sinful way to prevent pregnancy in marriage?

I'm pretty sure the view of this depends on denomination, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

 

I've heard both yes and no. Some claim the case with Onan was due more to his disobedience in not providing a child for his brother's wife. Some say it was the act itself and that contraception, other than monitoring the woman's cycle (rhythm method), is wrong.

 

I'd like a clearer picture, please. Preferably with biblical backing. Thanks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the bigger thing here is that withdrawal doesn't prevent pregnancy at all. Males usually generate pre-cum when sexually stimulated. This pre-cum has sperm in it, so if there is penetration without any form of birth control, you are risking pregnancy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the bigger thing here is that withdrawal doesn't prevent pregnancy at all. Males usually generate pre-cum when sexually stimulated. This pre-cum has sperm in it, so if there is penetration without any form of birth control, you are risking pregnancy. 

 

From my understanding about a third of men have sperm in their pre-ejaculate fluid. The topic was wracked with controversy for a while. The current science appears to conclusively show that at least some men contain perfectly fertile sperm in their pre-ejaculate fluid. If you want to prevent pregnancy, I suggest condoms and birth-control along with some commonsense natural family planning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I appreciate each of your inputs, the reliability of the method wasn't my question.

 

As for the pill, did you know what 'thinning the uterus lining' means? In short, the meaning is this: If the pill fails in protecting your egg from fertilization, the fertilized egg will not be allowed to implant and will thus be aborted. Some may not care about this, but personally I see life beginning at conception not implantation. For this reason, I do not believe in birth control that does this.

 

I'm thinking of trying out the rhythm method (tracking the female's cycle), because so far that seems to be the only 'appropriate' method that doesn't have you trying to be God in the situation.

 

As for Onan, I have heard that side of it. I've also heard that it was withdrawal that was the sin, because it's wrong to take procreation out of the act, as sex was intended to be pleasurable, intimate AND for procreation. Also, I've heard that in doing so you are trying to play God in a sense because it is not up to us on whether or not we should conceive more children, but up to Him. I completely see how you interpret that and I'm not saying I disagree at all. I'm merely curious as to how you know why God felt how he did about the scenario. Does it say anywhere in the Bible why he was angry at Onan specifically? That might help clear up some of my questions.

 

Thank you all for your opinions on the matter! I appreciate all of your insights and concerns. Y'all are the best. (:

Edited by SavedByTheSon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you want my opinions on contraception in general, I'm Catholic, so I have very odd view I guess. I believe that having sex without being open to the life-creating aspects of it is a sin. I guess it's close to the Quiver-full movement in Protestantism, but I believe that the rhythm method is the only valid method because the possibility of having a child, if God wills it, is still there, but all other forms of sex seem selfish and take God out of the equation entirely. Otherwise, it's the same as any other of the worse sins. It's doing something just to feel pleasure, not to honor God or your spouse or anything like that. 

 

I'm sure that's not well explained and it's not scriptural, but it's the way I see it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you want my opinions on contraception in general, I'm Catholic, so I have very odd view I guess. I believe that having sex without being open to the life-creating aspects of it is a sin. I guess it's close to the Quiver-full movement in Protestantism, but I believe that the rhythm method is the only valid method because the possibility of having a child, if God wills it, is still there, but all other forms of sex seem selfish and take God out of the equation entirely. Otherwise, it's the same as any other of the worse sins. It's doing something just to feel pleasure, not to honor God or your spouse or anything like that. 

 

I'm sure that's not well explained and it's not scriptural, but it's the way I see it. 

 

I was never much of a Thomist, so I find the current teachings by the Roman Curia to be very unconvincing. In the olden days of the Catholic Church, the Vatican understood sexuality from an Augustinian position. Sex was intrinsically evil — I believe Pope Gregory the Great gave a proclamation forbidding married Catholics from enjoying the sex act. With the ressourcement/nouvelle théologie movement a romantic understanding of human sexual broke onto the scene and combatted the anti-sex view of the past. The current of Vatican II was positioning itself to pursue the romantic theology of the body, but Pope Paul VI unilaterally cut it short and instituted Humanae Vitae. His Holiness tried to merge the romantic and the anti-sex views together, a position which is inherently unstable. So what we have now in the Church are those — like myself — in the romantic-relational tradition who wish to discard the anti-sex parts entirely, and those on the side of Pope Paul VI who know a return to the old Augustinian philosophy would be absurd and therefore, dogmatically cling to the compromise position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I appreciate each of your inputs, the reliability of the method wasn't my question.

 

As for the pill, did you know what 'thinning the uterus lining' means? In short, the meaning is this: If the pill fails in protecting your egg from fertilization, the fertilized egg will not be allowed to implant and will thus be aborted. Some may not care about this, but personally I see life beginning at conception not implantation. For this reason, I do not believe in birth control that does this.

 

I'm thinking of trying out the rhythm method (tracking the female's cycle), because so far that seems to be the only 'appropriate' method that doesn't have you trying to be God in the situation.

 

As for Onan, I have heard that side of it. I've also heard that it was withdrawal that was the sin, because it's wrong to take procreation out of the act, as sex was intended to be pleasurable, intimate AND for procreation. Also, I've heard that in doing so you are trying to play God in a sense because it is not up to us on whether or not we should conceive more children, but up to Him. I completely see how you interpret that and I'm not saying I disagree at all. I'm merely curious as to how you know why God felt how he did about the scenario. Does it say anywhere in the Bible why he was angry at Onan specifically? That might help clear up some of my questions.

 

Thank you all for your opinions on the matter! I appreciate all of your insights and concerns. Y'all are the best. (:

 

I am curious as to why you believe that life begins at conception since you are not Roman Catholic? It appears to me the reason to be against early stage abortion is because of the tradition of the Church, since there is no biblical statements on abortion one way or the other. I personally adhere to the Augustinian/Thomist position that a soul cannot exist within an non-formed body, but I still take the Vatican's position — Zabby's position — and the history of the Church gravely because I believe there is immense wisdom in it. I am not sure why anybody would even think of coitus interruptus as being immoral if they were not within the Catholic tradition.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am curious as to why you believe that life begins at conception since you are not Roman Catholic? It appears to me the reason to be against early stage abortion is because of the tradition of the Church, since there is no biblical statements on abortion one way or the other. I personally adhere to the Augustinian/Thomist position that a soul cannot exist within an non-formed body, but I still take the Vatican's position — Zabby's position — and the history of the Church gravely because I believe there is immense wisdom in it. I am not sure why anybody would even think of coitus interruptus as being immoral if they were not within the Catholic tradition.  

 

When a child is formed, it is said to have been CONCIEVED not IMPLANTED. When sperm and egg meet, this is what starts forming the baby, not the implantation. Implantation is step two. I do not believe in the little 'lines' of what is okay and what's not. Abortion is abortion, whether it is a newly fertilized egg or a further developed baby. It is ending a life that would've been had neither of which taken place (pill or abortion by other means). I feel very strongly about abortion, babies and children in general. I'm not very tolerant of anything that is anti-life. It's not about denomination. It's about my personal morals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2013 at 3:12 PM, Wesker said:

 

I am curious as to why you believe that life begins at conception since you are not Roman Catholic? It appears to me the reason to be against early stage abortion is because of the tradition of the Church, since there is no biblical statements on abortion one way or the other.

There are biblical statements on why one should not approve of abortion at any stage from conception to birth. Some that come to mind are Jer. 1:5a, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
And before you were born I consecrated you" Psalms 139:13, "For You formed my [a]inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." This states that even before a child is created God has a plan for them and He doesn't let a sperm fertilize an egg on accident. If you truly believe that God has everything under control you will realize that no human child is an accident and that they should never be destroyed either through early pre-implantation abortion or late term abortion. It is also however a conviction that you will have to come to yourself through the guiding of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now