Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

2 Bumps

Why is birth control suddenly against Christianity?

Today an acquaintance on Facebook posted an article she call "concerning" it is about how a Christian company "Hobby Lobby" (I had no idea they were Christian) is going to be "forced" to comply with Obama's HHS mandate, which they are saying is going to "force them to provide their employees with pills that induce abortion"

My question isn't about that exactly but is this, why for all the years I have been a Christian before Obama (which is a lot) did the only Christians I knew of who were against birth control and planB were Catholics and a small amount of Baptists and all the Christians I knew who talked about such things were all for BC and complained at how much it costs but now that Obama is involved in something that will make it cost less for them, they are all against it and calling it, abortion-inducing and anti-Christian?

My mother in law is an example, she encouraged me to be on BC, saying how she was on it for YEARS before she got her tubes tied. Now all of a sudden it's abortion inducing and anti-Christian. smh. Has anyone else noticed this.

Answer Question
 
Anonymous

Asked by Anonymous at 4:31 PM on Nov. 14, 2012 in Religious Debate

Answers (35)
  • If you definition of life is sperm meets egg then I hate to break it to all the women who have had at least 4-5 miscarries in their lives unknowingly. Not every fertilized egg implants. To be alive it must eat, breath and grow- two of those things do not occur until after implantation. It doesn't breath or grow in any from until it implants.
    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 4:58 PM on Nov. 14, 2012

  • As Catholicism is the first Christian church, and has always been against birth control
    adnilm

    Answer by adnilm at 5:02 PM on Nov. 14, 2012

  • Honestly many birth control pills stop ovulation as a first step - no ovulation, no fertilization. They also line the walls to make it harder for sperm to get to an egg, and THEN (as a last resort, if the first two fail) for the egg to implant. So if the pill (at least ones designed this way) works as it should there should be no egg, because that is the main step. But people want to over look that and jump solely on the "it stops implantation" bandwagon, even though women naturally pass many fertilized eggs in their lifetimes without even knowing. That's one of the main arguments I've seen, anyway. That and it apparently encourages promiscuity and sex outside of marriage. Because that level of holiness matters more than allowing people to at least be responsible about their choices and preventing the need for an abortion in the first place...
    bandgeek521

    Answer by bandgeek521 at 5:03 PM on Nov. 14, 2012

  • It is stopping the natural consequence of sexual activity.
    adnilm

    Answer by adnilm at 5:04 PM on Nov. 14, 2012

  • I'm not religious so I never even heard of this
    mommys2cupcakes

    Answer by mommys2cupcakes at 6:43 PM on Nov. 14, 2012

  • It is stopping the natural consequence of sexual activity.


    If it's a natural consequence of "sexual activity" someone's been doing oral wrong...
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 7:37 PM on Nov. 14, 2012

  • It is about the government forcing people to provide things that the government has no right in mandating.  The Federal Government should strictly be protecting the states and allowing the states to govern themseleves. 

    Anonymous

    Answer by Anonymous at 1:31 AM on Nov. 15, 2012

  • This issue has been forced into the light because of Obamacare. Obviously no one can force a woman not to take BC, the morning-after pill, that other pill, or anything else. The problem is, IMO, 2 fold. Obamacare is tough to comply with if you are a small business and if someone doesn't agree with BC, why should they be forced to pay for insurance that provides BC for free to their employees?

    Whether or not one religion or denomination has/is/will decide whether BC violates their tenants, IMO, is beside the point. We have a constitution that is supposed to protect religious liberty, so I think that means, we aren't supposed to be forced to take part in something that is against our conscience. Personally, I'm a Christian and I don't have a problem with BC pills for someone else and don't want to tell someone else what to do, but I'll have no part in the morning after pill or the RU 486.
    HHx5

    Answer by HHx5 at 9:07 AM on Nov. 15, 2012

  • if someone doesn't agree with BC, why should they be forced to pay for insurance that provides BC for free to their employees?



    Becasue they sholdn't be abe to force THEIR personal opinions regarding healthcare on their employees.
    KristiS11384

    Answer by KristiS11384 at 10:49 AM on Nov. 15, 2012

  • So it's ok vice versa? Birth control is readily available. It's not necessary to offend people to get BC. It's supposed to be a choice, right? No one is taking away this choice.

    Because of Obamacare, I foresee employer-provided health insurance as a thing of the past.
    HHx5

    Answer by HHx5 at 11:06 AM on Nov. 15, 2012

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.
close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN