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

SHARE THIS QUESTION:

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

Answers (35)

Link:

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

Answer by Iamgr8teful at 10:38 PM on Nov. 19, 2012
Credits: 22714 Level 25 Religious Debate Minor

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
BG, saying that sex is only for procreation is very different from saying that many Christians oppose birth control (especially hormonal birth control).

@NP, in response to post on page one - until 1930, nearly all Christians were opposed to all forms of birth control except what is sometimes called "fertility awareness method", and even that was to be used only with good reason. At the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Communion officially accepted birth control as acceptable, and many other denominations followed.

@OP, there is no "suddenly" about it. People are just more aware of the fact that some Christians disagree since Kathleen Sebelius and her ilk are trying to make birth control and abortion into entitlements that must be supported by taxpayers.

Answer by Iamgr8teful at 10:37 PM on Nov. 19, 2012
Credits: 22714 Level 25 Religious Debate Minor

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
Here's a question - pregnancy is not ALWAYS the "natural consequence" of sex. There are only 24 hours a month a woman can get pregnant, where the egg can be fertilized. Sure, the sperm live for a few days, so maybe four days out of the month where it is even possible , never mind an absolute consequence. So is all sex outside of those four days or so wrong, then, too, if sex is only for the possibility of a pregnancy? If we are going to argue God could make happen what He wills, wouldn't that be true whether a woman were on birth control or not?

Answer by bandgeek521 at 9:27 AM on Nov. 19, 2012
Credits: 178274 Level 44 Religious Debate Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
NP, all of us pay indirectly for things we don't necessarily agree with because we pay taxes. Just as Sikhs and Hindus may not be happy about their tax money paying for meat, I am not happy that my tax money has funded Planned Parenthood. The HHS Mandate that requires employers to pay for insurance policies that fund contraception and abortion is a more direct form of funding. You are putting words in my mouth - I did not say my religion is more important than anyone else's religion. Anyone else is free to protest if they wish. I would think that if Sikhs and Hindus were really concerned about funding the food stamp program, we would have heard something from them.

@FFA - (RE: post # 1, page # 1)Once again, you have managed to insult one billion people in a single sentence. We don't need to debate who has a more solid science background. I would suggest that you educate yourself on the way hormonal birth control works.

Answer by Iamgr8teful at 9:26 PM on Nov. 18, 2012
Credits: 22714 Level 25 Religious Debate Minor

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
For me it is sin to be involved in any way in an abortion, so why should I be forced to pay for it?

For the same reason Sikh, Hindu and others who believe in a scriptural strictly vegan life and causing no harm to any creature are forced to pay for food stamps and school lunch programs that serve meat. Why is your religion more important than theirs?

Answer by NotPanicking at 4:12 AM on Nov. 18, 2012
Credits: 335972 Level 49 Religious Debate Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
@Kristi - on the contrary - society is forcing its views on us (those who are opposed to abortion, etc). For me it is sin to be involved in any way in an abortion, so why should I be forced to pay for it? Does our Constitution mean nothing anymore?

Roughly 12% of the nation's hospitals are Catholic-run. They will very likely be closing in the next two years if the government does not reach a workable compromise. The hospital I work for is one of them. I am willing to look for work elsewhere, if need be.

Answer by Iamgr8teful at 12:21 AM on Nov. 18, 2012
Credits: 22714 Level 25 Religious Debate Minor

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
Not all Christians disagree with contraception. Those who do cite the fact that hormonal contraception and the IUD can cause an abortion. This is not a matter of opinion. Read the insert that comes with a package of birth control pills (yes, get out the magnifying glass) and read the part that says it makes the uterine lining inhospitable to a fertilized ovum.

The problem with the HHS mandate is that is does not respect the religious freedom of employers who object to paying for abortions or drugs that cause abortions - and this from a President who went to the Middle East and pontificated about how we in the U.S. believe it is important to respect the religious beliefs of others!

Answer by Iamgr8teful at 9:14 PM on Nov. 17, 2012
Credits: 22714 Level 25 Religious Debate Minor

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
I don't know. I'm Catholic and we have always been this way.

Answer by JTROX at 8:49 AM on Nov. 17, 2012
Credits: 451 Level 10

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
it was done in the first century because you know more now, through the experience of those before you and because of science, so the
subject of life in the womb has made many advances scientifically and through experience.
Hobby Lobby was always a Christian owned company. Clue, they are not open on Sunday.

Answer by Dardenella at 1:23 PM on Nov. 16, 2012
Credits: 198410 Level 45 Religious Debate Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!
Again science and the more precice definition of terms and ideas. To some people there is a difference between placing a barrier between yourself and sperm and killing the entity that is formed after the sperm invades the egg and begins the new life.
Years ago BC was more touted in the light of preventing pregenancy and most thought it meant as in a barrier. As more information has come to light more people have had to change the way they look at things. Some have decided that killing the embryo as early as the sperm meets eggs is taking a life. It is their right to believe that as it is yours not to. Science tells us that at conception a new life is begun. Since it can only be human that point is moot. Termination of pregnancy as against the Catholic religion is nothing new.
Catholics have been practicing varrious forms of prevention , probably from the beginning. But just as you do not do things the way it way

Answer by Dardenella at 1:20 PM on Nov. 16, 2012
Credits: 198410 Level 45 Religious Debate Degree

Found an answer to your question?
Like us on Facebook!