Questions specifically on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) faith on contraception: 1. Does LDS church allow contraception? 2. What forms do they allow? 3. What are their arguments for allowing (or not allowing) contraception? On question #2 I would like to know the LDS take on what the Bible describes Onan as doing in Genesis 38:8,9 . Is that allowed or not and why? Genesis 38:8,9: > Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill > your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your > brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever > he slept with his brother’s wife, **he spilled his semen on the > ground** to keep from providing offspring for his brother.

Questions specifically on the Jehovah's Witnesses faith on contraception: 1. Do Jehovah's Witnesses allow contraception? 2. What forms do they allow? 3. What are their arguments for allowing (or not allowing) contraception? On question #2 I am mostly curious on what the Bible describes Onan as doing in Genesis 38:8,9 . Is that allowed or not and why? Genesis 38:8,9: > Then Judah said to Onan, “Sleep with your brother’s wife and fulfill > your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your > brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever > he slept with his brother’s wife, **he spilled his semen on the > ground** to keep from providing offspring for his brother.

The Catholic Church is strongly against contraception. Most Protestants nowadays accept it; I gather it was less common in the past. Of course it's possible that Protestants have just given in to worldly things here, but I don't buy that. However, I'm not quite sure that contraception can be seen as allowed by default, either. There should be either biblical or rational reasons for allowing contraception; I expect there to be both. What are they?

What is the earliest canon law reference that contraceptive intercourse does not consummate a marriage? Fr. Hardon, S.J., defines "consummated marriage " as >A marriage in which after the matrimonial contract is made husband and wife have marital intercourse. **Contraceptive intercourse does not consummate Christian marriage.** (Etym. Latin *consummare*, to bring into one sum, to perfect.)

Why should contraceptives **not** be cheap and widely available? When it comes to personhood one can broadly categorize two positions: - A person becomes a person at or very shortly after conception - A person becomes a person around the time of birth This results in two respective perspectives on abortions: - An abortion is the intentional 'murder' of a person ("Pro-life") - An abortion is a medical procedure removing a clump of cells from a woman's body ("Pro-choice") Thus you have one group that would consider abortions abhorrent, whilst you have another group which basically considers them fine. However, looking at Christian groups who argue against abortions, there is a systematic tendency to also be against the wide availability of contraception, which would be a very effective way to decrease the rates of 'something abhorrent' happening... whilst in contrast it's the groups that would consider abortions 'okay' (and thus have a far smaller 'motivation') that seem to advocate in favor of wide and cheap availability of contraceptives. Thus getting to my question: What are the main religious arguments employed by Christian 'groups' against the wide availability of contraceptives? Note that I am specifically **not** asking whether specific denominations are in favor or against the use of contraceptives by their own congregation (as there are some fantastic articles already discussing that). --- Some perspective: Personally, I take an anti-abortion view (based on the position that we don't know when a person becomes a person, so I think we should play it safe), and I feel like it thus becomes a moral imperative to advocate in favor of the wide availability of cheap or free contraception, because *regardless* of whether a Christian should or shouldn't use contraception, it's far more important to decrease the rate of abortions. I always felt like this is something that should've and could've been a common ground between the different groups (pro life and pro choice), and yet the polar opposite is true. Nearly every time I express this position in a discussion with a 'pro-choice' individual I get relatively shocked reactions.

I was recently listening to a podcast between [Stephanie Gray Connors](https://loveunleasheslife.com/about) and [Trent Horn](https://www.trenthorn.com) on the unethical nature of IVF. One argument that was brought up was the idea that the Catholic Church teaches "babies and bonding", which is why IVF and birth control are wrong. IVF doesn't have bonding, and birth control doesn't have babies. But at a certain point, a woman becomes unable to have children. So after that point, would it be unethical for the man and woman to have sex (according to the Catholic Church)?

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Leader of the British House of Commons and Lord President of the Council, was corrected publicly by a Labour Member of Parliament when, in declining to engage in debate regarding ECP ('Emergency Contraception Pill', the so-called 'morning after pill') he referred to it as an 'abortifacient'. The Labour M.P. (to whom Mr Rees-Mogg has yet to reply) stated that an ECP prevents ovulation and does not abort an embryo. Therefore, she stated, the term 'abortifacient' does not apply. *Is Mr Rees-Mogg expressing the position of the Roman Catholic Church on this matter or is it his own private conscience he is exercising ?* ------------------------------ Both my wife and I chose, during our marriage, not to use contraception, nor to use ultra-sound prior to birth ; and we accepted responsibility for the outcomes (which was four healthy children).

Have any Catholic theologians, Doctors, or Fathers of the Church used >Mt. 18:5
he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. or especially >Mt. 19:14
Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such. to argue against contraception?

Contraception is not OK according to the Catholic Church, with the exception of fertility awareness methods (FAMs), which involve abstinence when a woman is in the part of her cycle where she is fertile. However, there are ways to decrease male fertility, such as getting 'snipped' (a vasectomy), which the Catholic Church says constitutes a mortal sin. A Catholic.com article states > "A vasectomy constitutes grave matter. Together with full knowledge of > the gravity of the action and full and free consent to the action, a > mortal sin is committed." What about simply eating in a way that is intended to decrease male fertility, such as going vegan and eating lots of soy, say - according to the Catholic Church, would that also be sinful, and if so, would it constitute a mortal sin or would it be a venial sin?

I listened to a Christoper West audio recordings where he explains the theology of the body of JP2 writings. He keeps on saying how important it is to be open to new life within the marital act(sex). Using contraception is prohibited because it violates the very act of love. I noticed though among Catholics who practice NFP (natural family planning) that they solely use it to prevent new life. I'm talking about people who have no problem to conceive a child. I never hear them saying we are trying to conceive a baby. I only see the announcements how they 'again' got pregnant unexpectedly. Probably because they made a mistake in calculations or couldn't abstain. My question is: Doesn't this set NFP to the same level as contraception? Does the child always need to be expected? I know there is nothing wrong to have an unexpected baby or to postpone having a baby. Don't the couples' always trying to avoid pregnancy changing the meaning of NFP use? Didn't it become to be 'open to new life but always try to prevent it'?

I don't have hard statistics at hand, but a quick search on the web can easily reveal that the use of contraception is controversial among Christians, as not every denomination or church openly accepts it. Just for the sake of sharing an example, this [BBC article](https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/christianethics/contraception_1.shtml) claims that: > Christian acceptance of contraception is relatively new; all churches > disapproved of artificial contraception until the start of the 20th > century. > > In modern times different Christian churches hold different views > about the rightness and wrongness of using birth control. **Question**: What is the biblical basis against contraception? What are common exegetical arguments against the practice of birth control?

This subject is clear when it comes to Catholicism who explicitly forbids contraception and encourage natural family planning. Then most protestants do not forbid the use of contraception. However when it comes to Eastern Orthodoxy, it seems that there is a smoke in the air, and nobody has a clear position. Orthodox Christians don't have a central catechism like the Catholic Church does, so that only further complicates things. Does Eastern Orthodoxy have a position at all when it comes to contraception? (My guess would highly be that they forbid it.)

Don't laugh at me, but I heard that some conditions are as follows: 1. Soldier coming back from years of serving has only one night to spend with spouse 2. Couple has at least a certain number of children and cannot afford anymore. 3. Couple would not be able to conceive even if they did not use contraceptives for example, woman's time of month, infertility or such situations. not that there's any good reason to do it other than hypothetical inquiry Really Catholic. I heard those from people who are either Catholic or know people who are.

In Pope Pius XI's encyclical *Casti Connubii* , we read: > What is asserted in favor of the social and eugenic "indication" may and must be accepted, provided lawful and upright methods are employed within the proper limits Within the context of paragraph 66, the "indication" (*eugenicæ* indicationis ) is condemned when exploited "for the killing of the innocent", e.g., abortion (cf. paragraph 63). But in the larger context, * What is eugenic "indication"? Presumably it is related to "hereditary transmission" of genetic traits (cf. paragraph 68). * What is a lawful employment of this eugenic "indication"?

If a person uses a "Plan B" contraceptive to prevent pregnancy without knowing it may inhibit implantation, is he a murderer?

As I understand it, Roman Catholicism teaches the following: - Life begins at conception and therefore abortion is wrong - Artificial birth control is wrong Under normal circumstances these teachings seem complementary or at least unrelated. But it seems to me that this combination might be problematic when considering the case of a woman who has a history of miscarriages. Does the Roman Catholic Church specifically instruct such women differently than others? For example, assume a woman who has had several miscarriages despite medical intervention, and no live births. Would the RCC consider the deaths of the children in the womb of such a woman significant enough to instruct her to take one of the following approaches? - Abstention from sexual relations until menopause (eliminating the chance of miscarriage) - Mandatory use of natural family planning and/or artificial birth control (allowing the latter since it can prevent pregnancy more effectively than natural family planning alone) - Mandatory use of natural family planning only (reducing the chance of miscarriage, but not as much as previous options) Or does the RCC not recognize a distinction in such a case? From the perspective of the RCC, are such women just as free to pursue pregnancy as those with no history of miscarriage?

That's one thing that bothers me. While I agree that using means of birth control that affect embryo is simply wrong in the terms of morality, I cannot tell any difference between natural family planning and different kinds of contraception (as mentioned in the title). I know the argumentation that the first mentioned way is consistent with nature, while the other one is contradictory with characteristics of the true act of love. However, that doesn't appear to be really convincing to me. After all, preventing yourself from having sex in certain period of life also appears to be not consistent with nature - after all, it's act of human will (I'm not saying it's wrong, it just appears to be not different from other means of contraception). Also, I think that the intention of the action is most important factor of moral evaluation of it. Nevertheless, both the outcome and intention of using contraception in both mentioned cases are the same - partners don't want to have baby, and so it happens, though no embryo dies. Also, some people indicate that using, so to say, "artificial" contraception makes people more liberal in their love life. Actually, I'd dispute with that. After all, it's not impossible that individuals would be able to "control" themselves but just not bother with natural method of family planning. To sum up, I wanted to indicate that for me there's no actual difference between natural and non-natural birth control (excluding all the means causing early miscarriage). Can anyone tell me real difference between those two that could cause varying moral evaluation of these? Thank you in advance for all the answers.

Card. Kasper made the following comments in an interview with WNYC Radio’s Brian Lehrer as transcribed in this article [‘The Church is not against birth control at all’: Cardinal Walter Kasper](http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-church-is-not-against-birth-control-at-all-cardinal-walter-kasper) : > Lehrer asked whether married couples who already have “three children > and live in poverty” should not be “allowed to use birth control to > prevent more conception?” > > [Card.] Kasper responded, “**Well, the Church is not against birth > control at all.** … **It’s about the methods of birth control.** … I > do not want to enter into this characteristic…how they have to do it. > It’s their personal conscience and their personal responsibility.” The audio is here: [The Pope's Theologian | The Brian Lehrer Show](http://www.wnyc.org/story/popes-theologian/) . The question is whether the Catholic Church is NOT all against birth control, and from the Cardinal's words, whether there are licit methods of birth control. cf. [Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2366-2372 | The fecundity of marriage](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm)

This question is NOT: > What is the Biblical view of contraception? This question is: > Is there any Biblical teaching that simultaneously: > > * allows for temporary contraception AND > * disallows for permanent contraception? (vascetomy / tubal ligation) To avoid the question of "when does life technically begin", assume that both forms of contraception prevent the egg from being fertilized. Thanks.

The Catholic Church is renowned for its solid stance on codemning the use of artificial contraception. However, outside of Catholicism, What is the biblical argument that contraception in marriage is acceptable?