Margaret Sanger, Eugenics, and Population Control
The following is the companion BLOG to read along with our video show of Revelation Redpill Episode 25 to watch the show: Click Here!
You are a cog in someone else’s system
You are a pawn, a piece, in someone else’s game
(Forget about the dissolved US gov and British crown, those are all distractions from your real rulers)
Communism is the disease of the East
Progressivism is the disease of the West
If you want to find out exactly what ales this nation, it’s not so much the anarchist teachings of the radical communists but their more powerful, more organized, wealthy elite cousins- the Progressives.
Progressives disguise themselves as the helpers of mankind.
They are the Bill and Melinda Gates who rob the poor and then control them through a favorite slight of hand term “philanthropy.”
People who have made millions are either scamming, charging too much, or not paying their employees enough
They likely make deals with bankers and post Federal Reserve they are issuing monopoly money to make more monopoly money-
Where does Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood fit into the globalist agenda and how do eugenics tie into end times theology?
Follow the bread crumbs
Darwin and Darby- a loss of a solid theological foundation in favor of the new, the extraordinary, the discovery of new ideas gives way to mystism, Mormonism, 7th Day Adventists, Darwinism, evolution, Darbyism and the prophesy conferences.
2And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you if you heed the voice of the Lord your God.
3Blessed shall you be in the city and blessed shall you be in the field.
4Blessed shall be the fruit of your body and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your beasts, the increase of your cattle and the young of your flock.
5Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading trough.
6Blessed shall you be when you come in and blessed shall you be when you go out.
7The Lord shall cause your enemies who rise up against you to be defeated before your face; they shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways.
8The Lord shall command the blessing upon you in your storehouse and in all that you undertake. And He will bless you in the land which the Lord your God gives you.
9The Lord will establish you as a people holy to Himself, as He has sworn to you, if you keep the commandments of the Lord your God and walk in His ways.
10And all people of the earth shall see that you are called by the name [and in the presence of] the Lord, and they shall be afraid of you.
11And the Lord shall make you have a surplus of prosperity, through the fruit of your body, of your livestock, and of your ground, in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give you.
12The Lord shall open to you His good treasury, the heavens, to give the rain of your land in its season and to bless all the work of your hands; and you shall lend to many nations, but you shall not borrow.
13And the Lord shall make you the head, and not the tail; and you shall be above only, and you shall not be beneath, if you heed the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you this day and are watchful to do them.
14And you shall not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right hand or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.
Poplulation Control is a Myth
Bruce Gore points out that at the turn of the 20th century things were getting out of hand. Christianity was making a turn from the prominent thought to being backwards thinking not “Progressive,” not moving forward
The traditional Christians were call Fundamentalists. That term was once a compliment then slowly it became a slur.
The intellectual elite took over the colleges and universities and began to systematically undo the moral underpinnings of society.
Evangelical Christians split as the Fundamentalist saw that sending their kids to college or Seminary resulted in a crises of faith. The Scofield reference Bible had just come out and the good Christians reading it read the footnotes showing that Jesus was about to come back soon.
They started their own Bible College movement that was academically light.
Dallas theological Seminary. DL Moody Bible Institute and they taught kids Dispensationalism.
So in this split between Fundamentalist Christians and Progressive Christians we see a new movement emerge. The Progressive Christians began to see themselves as ushering a utopia through social and political manuvers. Their biggest push was to eradicate poverty. They pushed for government funding for programs as well as a new philosophy called eugenics, aka family planning- or for the disabled, criminals, poor, or people of color- sterilization and eradication. Again, as Fundamentalist Christians lost power in prominate circles, they turned inward. They found solace in the Scofield Bible that their defeats in culture were merely God’s plan and that surely, Jesus was coming soon to rescue them. Instead of pushing back on the push for atheism, they retreated. The Fundamentalists held the line on morality while the progressives embraced an ever increasing number of vices. Congress had passed the Comstock Act in The Comstock Act of 1873 made it illegal to send “obscene, lewd or lascivious,” “immoral,” or “indecent” publications through the mail. The law also made it a misdemeanor for anyone to sell, give away, or possess an obscene book, pamphlet, picture, drawing, or advertisement.
The breadth of the legislation included writings or instruments pertaining to contraception and abortion, even if written by a physician. Although officially titled An Act for the Suppression of Trade In, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use, the statute did not provide a definition of obscenity.
Congress adopted the Comstock Act in response to the proliferation of obscene materials in the 1870s. Anthony Comstock, head of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, had shown members of Congress illustrations that he considered obscene and urged legislators to pass the measure to prevent crime and corruption of children.
After Congress passed the bill, it designated Comstock as a special agent in the United States Post Office charged with enforcing the law. With the help of his New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Comstock was able to arrest individuals under the new act.
Google Comstock Act today and you will find a plethora of left leaning sites worried that in the wake of Roe V Wade being overturned that Conservatives will look to invoke the Comstock Act once again because it’s never been repealed. Indeed, Congress has never repealed or replaced the Comstock Act. Instead, the Supreme Court made law- which it cannot do under the Constitution. The power to make laws governing the nation lies solely in Congress and the President must sign or veto that legislation.
Look around you? Is the kingdom of God manifesting in your life? We shouldn’t be too hard on those who see the world getting worse and worse and hoping for Jesus to come back. At every turn it seems we take one step forward in victory and two steps back. If our greatest achievement as Conservatives is to get people to boycott a beer company and buy Coors light instead of Budlight, we are not really winning but slowing the decent.
Fundamentalist Christians, now coined Evangelicals, have retreated from the culture, sometimes they come out to support a good Christian movie or decry the radical Progressive agenda of the left but with each passing day they are losing more ground. Or, I should say, they are giving more ground. Much of this ground given can be traced back to bad theology. Always find the connections. When stripping paint or laying a new floor, you need to go back to the beginning.
The whole reason Michelle and I started the Revelation Red Pill series was to encourage our fellow believers to start pushing back against the evil around us. In order to do that we knew you needed to have scriptures to back up the promises of God and you needed to know those promises were for you. In manifesting the kingdom and the promises of God many of you have burst through many mental hurtles. Getting out of the cities, growing your own food, pulling down strongholds in government, believing for farms and land… but there is one area of kingdom blessing we have left virtually untouched… until now. You have all have beautifully followed the link between sex trafficking and pornography and are giving up this horrible vice plaguing society. Most of you are ardently pro-life and even abstain from sexual relations before marriage. I commend you all. However, in the words of John the Revelator in his letters to the 7 churches, there is an oft refrain- this one thing you lack.
And so my fellow Revelation Red Pill Kingdom brothers and sisters, will you strap in and stay with me, even if this gets uncomfortable? Will you go with me with an open mind and open heart as we rip the layers down to their origin and find out how abortion, pornography, and sex trafficking took a hold? It wasn’t because of those outside of the church. Just like with our Ohio Issue one vote in August of 2023 to strengthen our Constitution… it was Christians who opened the floodgates of hell. You might be forgiven for not knowing this history because the same ones who rewrote Biblical eschatology rewrote how the church has consitiantly seen marriage and sexual relations. It all ties together. We will never erradicate abortion or pornography or sex trafficking. We will never take down the WHO, WEF, or stop the likes of Soros and Bill Gates if we are lukewarm…if we conform to this world…Hillary Clinton and Planned Parenthood praised the failure of OH Issue 1 yet some Christians still believe they voted correctly. They don’t know that it was Progressives in 1912 that ushered in the lower voting threshold to more easily change our Constitution. Indeed, Teddy Rosevelt, who are an ardent progressive and eugenist pushed forward the Constitutional Amendment change as promoting “purd democracy…”
You see, as a result of Christians pulling back from the cultural fight, thinking Jesus was coming back soon, Christians have been pulled further away from God and have fallen under the spell of the Progressive left. Meanwhile the devil laughs. Over 53 million babies have been aborted because Christians let the devil breach the wall and enter into their homes…
Margaret Sanger, Eugenics, World Depopulation… They all used one term and promoted one major product.
Family Planning…aka Planned Parenthood and Birth Control
Abortion and Birth Control are twin sisters. The way into sin is birth control the result is death any way you spin it. Let me show you how…
The mid to late 1800’s were a turbulent time in America. Financial prosperity had led rise to bankers- aka robber barrons.
If you haven’t seen, The Men Who Built America (also known as The Innovators: The Men Who Built America in some international markets) is an eight-hour, four-part miniseries docudrama which was originally broadcast on the History Channel in autumn 2012.The series focuses on the lives of Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, J. P. Morgan, and Henry Ford, I highly recommend it. You will find the devil working in these men, and again, the push to get Christians to believe that the world must get worse and worse- more immoral, played right into these crooked men’s hands. Pulling men and women off of farms and into the cities, was a main driving force behind the Progressive agenda to “help the poor,” create “social programs,” and tell Christians their God was dead, they had failed in manifesting the kingdom of God. To solve society’s ills- which they themselves created, they would need your money, your power, and your vote.
One of those society ills was to reduce the “feeble” population- ie, criminals, the disabled, poor, people of low birth or people of color. Many people know Margaret Sanger as one of the major propenants of eugenics but she was certainly not the first.
The French have a word for it: débaptiser.
A prominent French scientist, Alexis Carrel (1878-1944) won the Nobel Prize for his inventions. His work saved military and civilian lives during both world wars. After his death, a grateful nation baptized the medical school of Lyons as Alexis-Carrel University. In the 1990s, however, critics recalled that Carrel had been an ardent eugenicist. In his book Man the Unknown (1935), Carrel recommended the use of gas chambers to deal with criminals and the insane. In the 1936 preface to the German edition, he praised the new National Socialist government’s eugenic policy of forced sterilization. The French government quickly debaptized Alexis-Carrel University and rebaptized it in the name of T. H. Laënnec, the uncontroversial inventor of the stethoscope.
Sir Francis Galton who came up with the term “eugenics” way back in 1883, and he coined it to describe a theory he had already spent years developing. The University of Virginia says he envisioned it meaning “well-born,” and the whole root of the idea went back to his more famous cousin: Charles Darwin.
Most people are familiar with Darwin’s work regarding evolution, and Galton was, too. He was captivated by the idea, and took it one step further. According to the Galton Institute, he published early texts on eugenics around 1864, and wrote about his discovery that there were a ton of “eminent men” who had family connections. Then, he suggested that success was genetic. He believed the most desirable characteristics of the human race — success, intelligence, and a fine, honest character — were passed down through the generations.
Galton suggested that if only the finest specimens married and reproduced, it would lead to the creation of a Utopian society. He “proved” his theory in a work called Hereditary genius, where he used the family trees of well-known men to illustrate how success seemed to run in the family.
Read More: https://www.grunge.com/180487/the-messed-up-history-of-eugenics/
Galton’s work focused on so-called “positive eugenics,” which basically meant encouraging people with desirable characteristics to have more children. But it wasn’t long before devotees developed a different kind — negative eugenics, which promoted the idea that the lower classes, the poor, and other “undesirables” needed to stop reproducing. From there, it was just one small step to suggesting there was a whole section of the population that needed to be removed from the gene pool entirely, and in 1911, a Carnegie-funded report explored exactly how that could be done.
The eighth item on the list (via The Jerusalem Post) was euthanasia. Specifically, it was suggested that undesirable people be sent to a “public locally operated gas chamber,” and that’s some serious Third Reich stuff right there. Other suggestions made in the report and by others around the same time were that physicians should let patients die if they were suffering from a hereditary malady or illness, that babies born “defective” should be denied medical attention and care until they simply died, or that they should be dosed with chloroform or cyanide.
That couldn’t have happened … right? It absolutely did. One hospital in Illinois started giving patients milk from cows infected with bovine tuberculosis, assuming that if they were genetically strong, they would survive. Around 30 to 40 percent of their patients died during this experiment.
3 mins- 1.25x
Read More: https://www.grunge.com/180487/the-messed-up-history-of-eugenics/
According to PBS, the “undesirables” of America who were targeted by the eugenics movement were immigrant populations, the poor, people of color, unwed mothers, the mentally ill, and the disabled. It wasn’t just talk, either — starting in 1909, the state of California conducted somewhere around 20,000 forced sterilizations to stop people in these groups from reproducing. That was over the course of a shocking 70 years, and California wasn’t the only state doing it. Take Mississippi. It was so common for teaching hospitals to demonstrate hysterectomies on unwilling black women that there was a name for it: Mississippi appendectomies. And some of those women? They were girls, including children just 9-years-old.
Read More: https://www.grunge.com/180487/the-messed-up-history-of-eugenics/
John Kellog- yes, that KellogKellog was raised a 7th Day Adventist. In fact, his parents moved to be closer to this new “denomination,” started by the self-proclaimed prophetess Ellen White and her husband, James, made their home in the Michigan town starting in 1854, moving the church’s headquarters in 1904 to Takoma Park, outside of Washington, D.C. They taught in the iminent return of Jesus and a selfless life, including a meatless life. healthy living and a nutritious, vegetable and grain based-diet. Many of Ellen White’s religious experiences were connected to personal health. During the 1860s, inspired by visions and messages she claimed to receive from God, she developed a doctrine on hygiene, diet and chastity enveloped within the teachings of Christ.
In 1914, the very first Race Betterment Conference was held, and that’s exactly what it sounds like. It was hosted at the Battle Creek Sanitarium by Race Betterment Foundation co-founder Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, and if you didn’t know your Corn Flakes came with a side of racism, well, you do now. According to the Battle Creek Enquirer, the point of the conference was to study “race degeneracy,” and put forward solutions to stop it. And Kellogg was right in the center of it all. He spent about 30 years studying eugenics, developing his theories alongside his other projects, like “biologic living” and health reform.
Meat and alcohol, he claimed, were “race poisons,” and went as far as claiming that if the human race continued on the trajectory it was on, it would go extinct. Also dangerous, in his book? “Race mixing.” He was 100 percent in favor of sterilization and the creation of human pedigrees, and spoke enthusiastically at the conference, saying: “If the human race is degenerating, then we should know it. We should let the people know …”
He pushed for public awareness, and he got it — the second conference was held at the Panama-Pacific International Exhibition in 1915, and somewhere around 18 million people visited the fair — and saw the Race Betterment Foundation’s exhibit in the entryway of the Palace of Education.
John Harvey Kellogg (February 26, 1852 – December 14, 1943) was an American businessman, inventor, and physician who was an advocate of the Progressive Movement. He was the director of the Battle Creek Sanitarium in Battle Creek, Michigan, founded by members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Read More: https://www.grunge.com/180487/the-messed-up-history-of-eugenics/
Ota Benga- Darwinian Superstition At New York Zoo
Beginning clip with Margaret, then min 2:15-4:47 then 5:43- 9:00 Inducted into the KKK
Sanger shaped the eugenics movement in America and beyond in the 1930s and 1940s. Her views and those of her peers in the movement contributed to compulsory sterilization laws in 30 U.S. states that resulted in more than 60,000 sterilizations of vulnerable people, including people she considered “feeble-minded,” “idiots” and “morons.”
She even presented at a Ku Klux Klan rally in 1926 in Silver Lake, N.J. She recounted this event in her autobiography: “I accepted an invitation to talk to the women’s branch of the Ku Klux Klan … I saw through the door dim figures parading with banners and illuminated crosses … I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak … In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered” (Margaret Sanger, “An Autobiography,” Page 366). That she generated enthusiasm among some of America’s leading racists says something about the content and tone of her remarks.
In a letter to Clarence Gable in 1939, Sanger wrote: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” (Margaret Sanger commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).
Her own words and television appearances leave no room for parsing. For example, she wrote many articles about eugenics in the journal she founded in 1917, the Birth Control Review. Her articles included “Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics” (June 1920), “The Eugenic Conscience” (February 1921), “The Purpose of Eugenics” (December 1924), “Birth Control and Positive Eugenics” (July 1925) and “Birth Control: The True Eugenics” (August 1928), to name a few.
The following are some of her more telling quotes:
“While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and syphilitic, I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.” (“Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919, The Birth Control Review).
“Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit” (“Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Feb. 1919, The Birth Control Review).
“Stop our national habit of human waste.” (“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 6).
“By all means, there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness and mental disorders. In the case of the mother, heart disease, kidney trouble and pelvic deformities are also a serious bar to childbearing No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.” (“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 7).
“The main objects of the Population Congress would be to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring[;] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” (“A Plan for Peace,” 1932).
In a 1957 interview with Mike Wallace, Sanger revealed: “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world — that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit.”
Like the advocates of Birth Control, the eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit. Both are seeking a single end, but they lay emphasis upon different methods. … Eugenics without Birth Control seems to us a house builded [sic] upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit.”
Margaret Sanger, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Birth Control Review, Feb. 1919, p. 11-12, emphasis added
[T]he campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical in ideal with the final aims of eugenics … [T]he most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the overfertility of the mentally and physically defective. … Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism.”
Margaret Sanger, “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda,” Birth Control Review, Oct. 1921, p. 5, emphasis added
In this article, Sanger explains in what way she disagrees with eugenics: she does not believe in encouraging the “fit” to have more children–“positive eugenics”. But she does approve of limiting the fertility of the “unfit”–“negative eugenics.”
“The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately….Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization…”
Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization (NY: Brentano’s, 1922), pp. 101-102
Her only objection to sterilization was its limited efficacy:
“While I personally believe in the sterilization of the feeble-minded, the insane and the syphiletic [sic], I have not been able to discover that these measures are more than superficial deterrents when applied to the constantly growing stream of the unfit. They are excellent means of meeting a certain phase of the situation, but I believe in regard to these, as in regard to other eugenic means, that they do not go to the bottom of the matter.”
Margaret Sanger, “Birth Control and Racial Betterment,” Birth Control Review, Feb. 1919, p. 12)
In the end, Sanger believed that nothing would replace birth control as the necessary eugenic tool.
Margaret Sanger supported direct government coercion of sterilization for the poor.
“It now remains for the United States government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or a yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition…. [A]sk the government to first take off the burdens of the insane and feebleminded from your backs. Sterilization for these is the remedy.”
Margaret Sanger, “The Function of Sterilization,” Birth Control Review, Oct. 1926, p. 299, emphasis added.
She called for Congress to set up a “ Parliament of Population,” among whose tasks would include: “to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring….[and] to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.” (Margaret Sanger, “A Plan for Peace,” Birth Control Review, April 1932, p. 107)
Harry H. Laughlin wrote the “Model Sterilization” law for eugenic sterilization, the law on which the Nazis later based their 1933 sterilization law. Laughlin was on Sanger’s American Birth Control League Board.
I have tears in my eyes. My heart is heavy. Lord, in the face of such pressure to limit children for financial or even health reasons, how do I deliever this message you have put upon my heart?
Tell them about my love for children. Yes Lord, they know you love children, so most couples have two or even three. They love their children very much but want to space them out, they want to give their children the best life possible. How can I argue with that? Is it their job to provide for those children or me? Do they really believe that the sun rises or sets because of their work or effort? Do they believe the rain comes down or the crops come up somehow on their own? All human effort is meaningless when detached from the purposes and blessings of God. Tell them- children are my blessings to them.
What about single people, the barren? Tell them I have blessings for them too. Tell them life and death, even marriage, are in the hand of God. Tell them what you feel right now.
I feel sadness, a great deep sadness I can’t put into words Lord. I see the voices of the millions of babies not just destroyed in abortion but were destroyed in careless acts of sexual activity that divorced the purpose of the act from the pleasure. Purpose divorced from pleasure is promiscuity.
Webster’s 1828 promiscuous 1. Mingled; consisting of individuals united in a body or mass without order; confused; Common; indiscriminate
Married couples who copulate without being open to new life are denying the very foundation of marriage. Why did God make two into one?
Has not the LORD made them one, having a portion of the Spirit? And why one? Because He seeks godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit and do not break faith with the wife of your youth Malachi 2:15
So be sad, let your tears flow. Mourn not just for the unborn, the unwanted, the discarded, but mourn for the loss that those who disguarded my blessings must endure, not just in this life but in the life to come. When they see the seeds they prematurely aborted, when they see the family they could have had. You see many think that life begins at conception. But the conception of life begins with the sexual union and the potential to conceive. If the potential to conceive is there, meaning the sperm from a man would have under natural or unaltered circumstances entered into the egg of a woman during the proper time of her ovulation then that conception- the idea that a life could conceivably be created, even though dead on arrival, the blessing, the shadow, the dream, the essence of that child is snuffed out. You will see the ones you could have had and you will see the ones that had the spark of life in true conception in Heaven.
Spark of Life
March: In her radical journal The Woman Rebel, Margaret Sanger instructs women on times when it would be wise for women to avoid pregnancy, such as in the case of illness or poverty.
Anthony Comstock dies, but his anti-birth control laws remain entrenched.
March: In New York City a group of women form the National Birth Control League, an antecedent of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
Sanger returns to New York to face trial. The charges against her are dropped, but she continues to challenge the Comstock Laws and brazenly launches a new publication dedicated to her cause, Birth Control Review.
Oct.16: Sanger, with her sister and a friend, opens the first birth control clinic in America, in Brooklyn, New York. For the first time in American history, women can receive organized instruction in birth control.
Oct. 26: After only 10 days, Sanger’s clinic is raided by the vice squad and shut down. The women are arrested and all the condoms and diaphragms at the clinic are confiscated.
For many years prior to the advent of modern birth control (spearheaded by Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger), families did not generally try to take control of this area, but they let happen what would happen. Early Christian leaders condemned it as a crime. Birth control was actually illegal in the USA for some years, because of the Comstock laws (1873-1972): And I have news for you- these laws are still on the books. Congress never repealed them. The Supreme Court, all on their own, in a case called Griswold Vs Conneticut, wrongfully ruled that birth control should be found under the “right to privacy act,” and ignored the Constitution’s seperation of powers.
Marie Stopes, sexual liberation, contraceptives, and eugenics
Connecticut (1965) In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Supreme Court invalidated a Connecticut law that made it a crime to use birth control devices or to advise anyone about their use.
The Court applied the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate Bill of Rights protections to the states. In so doing, it found the Connecticut law unconstitutional because it violated the right to privacy within marriage – a right not listed in the Constitution
“. . . every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information directly or indirectly . . . how or by what means conception may be prevented . . . Whoever shall knowingly deposit or cause to be deposited for mailing or delivery, anything declared by this section to be non-mailable, or shall knowingly take, or cause the same to be taken, from the mails for the purpose of circulating or disposing thereof, or of aiding in the circulation or disposition thereof, shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”
“Twenty-three States make it a crime to publish or advertise contraceptive information. They are as follows: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wyoming; also Puerto Rico.
“Twenty-two States include in their prohibition drugs and instruments for the prevention of conception. . . . They are as follows: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wyoming and Puerto Rico.
“Eleven States make it a crime to have in one’s possession any instruction for contraception. These are: Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wyoming.
“Fourteen States make it a crime to tell anyone where or how contraceptive knowledge may be acquired. These are : Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Washington, Wyoming.
“Six States prohibit the offer to assist in any method whatever which would lead to knowledge by which contraception might be accomplished. These are: Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma and Puerto Rico.
“Eight States prohibit depositing in the Post Office any contraceptive information. These are: Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Wyoming.
“One State, Colorado, prohibits the bringing into the State of any contraceptive knowledge.
“Four States have laws authorizing the search for and seizure of contraceptive instructions, and these are: Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Oklahoma. In all these States but Idaho, the laws authorize the destruction of the things seized.”
So, mainstream American culture used to NOT use birth control very widely, and then it twisted around in the other direction, against years of church tradition and practice:
“Throughout history, Christianity has been openly opposed to contraceptives, with many religious leaders in the past thoroughly demonizing the use of contraceptives, despite the practice being used in the Mediterranean area since before the common era. The first recorded show of the Christian faith being against contraceptives is in the Didache, an early Christian treatise written around 70 AD which condemns the use of contraception along with abortion, infanticide, adultery, and other sins. This theme of Christian culture continued through the centuries until some churches accepted the use of contraceptives, limited at first, which started https://theheavenlyhearth.com/2021/07/02/is-quiverfull-a-cult/at the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church in 1930.”
A document from the second half of the first century or early second century. Didache reads: “You shall not practice birth control, you shall not murder a child by abortion, nor kill what is begotten” (2).
Anti Contraceptive Statue in NYC
1968 papal encyclical,Humanae Vitae teaches that: “each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.”Humanae Vitae roots this absolute prohibition of artificial contraception in a radically counter-cultural understanding of sex and procreation. While the assumption of contemporary culture is that man is autonomous and therefore has a moral right to determine when (or if) to conceive, Humanae Vitae teaches that God controls conception and thus, any attempt to use birth control is an attempt to usurp the place and plan of God. While pleasure and intimacy (what Humanae Vitae calls, “the unitive significance”) is part of the purpose of sex, it can never be divorced from the procreative purpose of sex – a purpose which is not only commanded by God in the Scriptures but is also “written into the actual nature of man and of woman.” From this flows the conclusion that marital intimacy must always leave itself open to new life
As late as 1960, the American legal system was not hospitable to the idea of birth control. Thirty states had statutes on the books prohibiting or restricting the sale and advertisement of contraception. These laws stretched back almost a century, reflecting an underlying American belief that contraception was lewd, immoral and promoted promiscuity.
The driving force behind the original anti-birth control statutes was a New Yorker named Anthony Comstock. Born in rural Connecticut in 1844, Comstock served in the infantry during the Civil War, then moved to New York City and found work as a salesman. A devout Christian, he was appalled by what he saw in the city’s streets. It seemed to him that the town was teeming with prostitutes and pornography. In the late 1860s, Comstock began supplying the police with information for raids on sex trade merchants and came to prominence with his anti-obscenity crusade. Also offended by explicit advertisements for birth control devices, he soon identified the contraceptive industry as one of his targets. Comstock was certain that the availability of contraceptives alone promoted lust and lewdness.
The Most Restrictive States
New England residents lived under the most restrictive laws in the country. In Massachusetts, anyone disseminating contraceptives — or information about contraceptives — faced stiff fines and imprisonment. But by far the most restrictive state of all was Connecticut, where the act of using birth control was even prohibited by law. Married couples could be arrested for using birth control in the privacy of their own bedrooms, and subjected to a one-year prison sentence. In actuality, law enforcement agents often looked the other way when it came to anti-birth control laws, but the statutes remained on the books.
These laws remained unchallenged until birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger made it her mission to challenge the Comstock Act. The first successful change in the laws came from Sanger’s 1916 arrest for opening the first birth control clinic in America. The case that grew out of her arrest resulted in the 1918 Crane decision, which allowed women to use birth control for therapeutic purposes.
Changing Laws for Changing Times
The next amendment of the Comstock Laws came with the 1936 U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, United States v. One Package. The decision made it possible for doctors to distribute contraceptives across state lines. This time Margaret Sanger had been instrumental in maneuvering behind the scenes to bring the matter before the court. While this decision did not eliminate the problem of the restrictive “chastity laws” on the state level, it was a crucial ruling. Physicians could now legally mail birth control devices and information throughout the country, paving the way for the legitimization of birth control by the medical industry and the general public
Protestant leaders who campaigned to make contraception respectable, and therefore widely acceptable, in the mid-20th century.
History, I have found, provides a different story about the relationship between Protestants and birth control.
As new contraceptive options emerged in the first two-thirds of the 20th century, from the diaphragm to the birth control pill, Christian leaders wrestled with what to think. Many came to see birth control as a moral good that would allow married couples to have satisfying sex lives, while protecting women from the health risks of frequent pregnancies. They hoped it could ensure that couples would not have more children than they could care for, emotionally and economically.
They looked inward, considering the consequences of birth control for their own communities, and hoped that “planned” or “responsible” sex would create healthy families and decrease divorce. They also looked outward, thinking about birth control’s wider implications, at a time of widespread concern that the global population was rising too quickly to handle.
By the time the pill came on the market in the 1960s, liberal and even some conservative Protestants were advocating for birth control using new theological ideas about “responsible parenthood.”Over the decades, Protestant leaders have, in large part, disappeared from pro-birth control arguments.
There are many reasons. Mid-century agricultural technologies reduced fears of overpopulation – which have only recently been reawoken by the climate crisis. Meanwhile, mainline Protestant churches, and their public influence, are shrinking. Conservative leaders eventually grew concerned that birth control would lead to more working women, not fewer. And since the 1970s, evangelicals have grown increasingly opposed to abortion, which was increasingly linked to birth control through the broad term “family planning.”
In other words, since the “population bomb” was no longer ticking, contraception no longer seemed like such an urgent necessity – and some of its other implications troubled conservatives, breaking an almost pan-Protestant alliance.
Meanwhile, liberal Protestants had so embraced contraception that they no longer viewed it as turf that needed defending. Today, 99% of American girls and women between the ages of 15 and 44 who have ever had sex use or have used a contraceptive method. Reproductive rights advocates turned their attention to abortion rights – largely leaving religious views on birth control to their opponents.
Min 21-26 Nixon, Birth Control for the Poor
The people of our class control their populations. The people who don’t control their populations are those who shouldn’t have kids
At the top of the page: Protestant Christians have been debating – and more often than not, supporting – modern contraceptives since they first appeared (Bettmann/Bettman via Getty Images). Above: Women with children stand outside Sanger Clinic, the first birth control clinic in United States, in Brooklyn, New York in 1916 (Circa Images/GHI/Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images).
“Responsible parenthood” reframed debates about family size around “Christian duty.” To be responsible in parenting was not only to avoid having more children than you could afford, nurture and educate. It also meant considering responsibilities outside the home toward churches, society and humanity.
Protestant leaders supporting contraception argued that the best kind of family was a father with a steady job and a homemaker mother, and that birth control could encourage this model, because smaller families could maintain a comfortable lifestyle on one income. They also hoped that contraception would help couples stay together by allowing them to have satisfying sex lives.
Multiple denominations endorsed birth control. In 1958, for example, the Anglican Communion stated that family planning was a “primary obligation of Christian marriage,” and chastised parents “who carelessly and improvidently bring children into the world, trusting in an unknown future or a generous society to care for them.”
THE GREAT REVERSAL—IN ENGLAND
How had a central pillar of the evangelical Protestant ethic been reversed so completely?
Some recent historical investigations offer partial answers. For example, the first formal break came within the Anglican communion, or the Church of England, with the clergy themselves leading the way. In 1911, the neo-Malthusian advocates of population limitation celebrated the results of England’s new census, showing that Anglican clergymen had an average of only 2.3 children, well-below their 1874 figure of 5.2. The Malthusians saw this as clear evidence of deliberate family limitation.
The Census results also added fuel to the arguments of dissident clergymen that a solution to England’s poverty problems must include the birth of fewer children. These pressures culminated at the Anglican Church’s 1930 Lambeth Conference, where delegates heard an address by birth control advocate Helena Wrighton on the advantages of contraception for the poor. On a 193 to 67 vote, the Conference passed a resolution stating that “in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, …other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of Christian principles
There was an immediate American Protestant echo. In 1931, the Committee on Home and Marriage of the Federal Council of Churches (an ecumenical body that embraced Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Church of the Brethren denominations) issued a statement defending family limitation and urging the repeal of laws prohibiting contraceptive education and sales
Even a church body committed to a defense of pure Lutheran orthodoxy—the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS)—stumbled on this question. As late as 1923, the Synod’s official publication, The Witness, accused the Birth Control Federation of America of spattering “this country with slime,” and labelled birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger a “she devil.” A popular 1932 volume on pastoral theology directly paraphrased Luther in stating that “women with many children are in middle age much more beautiful than those who have few children.”
et a countercurrent was gaining force, with LCMS clergy and theologians in the dubious lead. Similar to the Anglican experience, the average number of children found in clerical families fell from 6.5 in 1890 to 3.7 by 1920. The overall LCMS baptism rate declined from 58 baptisms per 1,000 members in 1885, to 37 in 1913, and 24 in 1932. In the late 1940′s, a leading LCMS professor of theology, Alfred Rehwinckel, said that Luther had simply been wrong: the Genesis phrase, “Be fruitful and multiply,” was merely a blessing, not a command. Rehwinckel went on to defend Margaret Sanger with a sympathetic history of family planning. By 1964, the Synod officially held that problems of poverty and overpopulation should help guide thinking about family size
THE 1961 NORTH AMERICAN CONFERENCE ON CHURCH AND FAMILY
Such views spread at a still more rapid pace among the Protestant “mainline” churches. Held near the end of the post World War II “baby boom,” when American family life for a brief period again seemed somewhat healthy, the 1961 North American Conference on Church and Family of the National Council of Churches (successor to the FCC) can only be called extraordinary. Setting a radical theme, keynote speaker J.C. Wynn of Colgate Divinity School dismissed existing Protestant books and pronouncements on the family and sexuality as “depressingly platitudinous” and “comfortably dull,” a regrettable “works righteousness.” A second keynoter praised this conference for its intended merger of Christianity with new insights from the sciences, “a mighty symbol of the readiness of the churches to ground their policy formation in objective, solid data.”
Other speakers formed a veritable “Who’s Who” of sexual radicalism. Lester Kirkendall said that America had “entered a sexual economy of abundance,” where contraception would allow unrestrained sexual experimentation without the burden of children. Wardell Pomeroy of the [Kinsey] Institute of Sex Research explained how the new science of sexology required the abandonment of all old moral categories. Psychologist Evelyn Hooker [sic] praised the healthily sterile lives of homosexuals. Planned Parenthood’s Mary Calderone made the case for universal contraceptive use, while colleague Alan Guttmacher urged the reform of America’s “mean spirited” anti-abortion laws.
Not a single speaker spoke in the spirit of the old Protestant pronatalist ethic. Indeed, this ethic now stood as the chief enemy. The conference endorsed development of a new evangelical sexual ethic, one “relevant to our culture,” sensitive to the overpopulation crisis, and grounded in modern science.
Member denominations soon complied. In a 1970 Report, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) rejected the old “taboos and prohibitions” and gave its blessing to “mass contraceptive techniques,” homosexuality, and low-cost abortion on demand. The same year, the Lutheran Church in America fully embraced contraception and abortion as responsible choices. And in 1977, the United Church of Christ celebrated the terms “freedom,” “sensuousness,” and “androgyny,” and declared free access to contraception and abortion as matters of justice.
In the fourth century, the Latin and Greek authors addressed these issues. St. Augustine wrote On Marriage and Concupiscence (419). Though he was already the bishop of Hippo when he wrote it, he is equally famous for having lived with a concubine for 14 years and had a son with her. Therefore, he had an experience of living in a sort of family and he learned from his mistakes. He wrote: “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame” (1.15
(Martin Luther called people who use contraception “logs,” “stock” and “swine.” John Calvin said contraception was “condemned and “doubly monstrous,” while abortion was “a crime incapable of expiation.”)
We find also in the Paedagogus of Clement of Alexandria the moral admonition: “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted.”
Beyond these express condemnations, what is more revealing was the repeated insistence among all the early Church Fathers of the inseparability of the sexual act and its procreative purpose. This was a constant concern and a repeated theme in their preaching and teaching. “We Christians,” said the early apologist Justin Martyr, “either marry in order to produce children, or, if we refuse to marry, are completely continent.” So too the second-century bishop Athenagoras declared in a letter to the emperor in 177 that Christians do not indulge in coitus to satisfy the lusts; rather, “the procreation of children is the measure of our indulgence in appetite.”
In constructing his evangelical family ethic, Luther placed emphasis on Genesis 1:28: “Be fruitful and multiply.” This was more than a command; he called it “a divine ordinance [werck] which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore.” Indeed, Luther saw procreation as the very essence of the human life in Eden before the Fall. As he explained in his Lectures on Genesis: “truly in all nature there was no activity more excellent and more admirable than procreation. After the proclamation of the name of God it is the most important activity Adam and Eve in the state of innocence could carry on—as free from sin in doing this as they were in praising God.” The Fall brought sin into this pure, exuberant fertility. Even so, Luther praised each conception of a new child as an act of “wonderment…wholly beyond our understanding,” a miracle bearing the “lovely music of nature,” a faint reminder of life before the Fall:
This living-together of husband and wife—that they occupy the same home, that they take care of the household, that together they produce and bring up children—is a kind of faint image and a remnant, as it were, of that blessed living together [in Eden].
Just as important, he called men home to serve as “housefathers” dedicated to the rearing of Christian children. In a wonderful passage, Luther describes the father who confesses to God “that I am not worthy to rock the little babe or wash its diapers, or to be entrusted with the care of the child and its mother.” Luther then assures him that “when a father goes ahead and washes diapers or performs some other mean task for his child…God, with all his angels and creatures, is smiling…because [the father] is doing so in Christian faith.”
Luther knew that the contraceptive mentality was alive and well in his own time. He noted that this “inhuman attitude, which is worse than barbarous,” was found chiefly among the well born, “the nobility and princes.” Elsewhere, he linked contraception to selfishness:
How great, therefore, the wickedness of [fallen] human nature is! How many girls there are who prevent conception and kill and expel tender fetuses, although procreation is the work of God! Indeed, some spouses who marry and live together…have various ends in mind, but rarely children.
Gen 29:31 And when the LORD saw that Leah [was] hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel [was] barren.
Gen 30:1 And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die.
Gen 30:2 And Jacob’s anger was kindled against Rachel: and he said, [Am] I in God’s stead, who hath withheld from thee the fruit of the womb?
Gen 49::25 By the God of your father who will help you, And by the Almighty who will bless you With blessings of heaven above, Blessings of the deep that lies beneath, Blessings of the breasts and of the womb.(it is a blessing to nurse a child).
(okay, so yeah…. I’m also trying mentally block who it is I’m writing right now:) There’s a scripture that says “to the pure all things are pure…” so pure thoughts here… 🙂
Ex 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, [both] of man and of beast: it [is] mine. ( How can we continue to deny what is rightfully the Lord’s. Of course we don’t live under the law, but the principles still remain- we shouldn’t close our wombs)
1 Sam 1:5 But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb. – Hannah then pleaded with the Lord and conceived Samuel.
Job 31:18 (But from my youth I reared him as a father, And from my mother’s womb I guided the widow)- Job saying he has done the right thing before he was born- while in his mother’s womb he was making the right decisions. (I’m not exactly sure how this is possible…lol but it’s in the Bible so I’ll go with it…:)
Hsa 9:10-11 “When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert; when I saw your fathers, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree. But when they came to Baal Peor, they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol and became as vile as the thing they loved.The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived.-( It was a curse to not have children, or not to be able to have them)
Hsa 9:14 Give them, O LORD: what will you give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.”- Again, this was a curse, a bad thing not to have children, not to be able to nurse.
Galations: “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called [me] by his grace, – Paul said it was GOD who separated him from his mother’s womb- that’s his job- Life is a miracle not to be taken for granted.”
Ps 71:6 On you have I leaned on and relied on from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother’s womb: my praise [shall be] continually of thee.
Ecc 11:5 God’s ways are as hard to discern as the pathways of the wind, and as mysterious as a tiny baby being formed in a mother’s womb.( KJV says “as the bones grow in the womb as with a child- this is a miracle and cannot be taken by man and destroyed)
Ps 113:9 HE MAKES THE BARREN WOMAN TO KEEP HOUSE AND TO BE A JOYFUL MOTHER OF CHILDREN Praise ye the LORD.
Ps 115:14 The LORD shall increase you more and more, you and your children
Ps 128:3 Thy wife [shall be] as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table.- The fruitful vine here is childbearing- again a blessing from God
9Shall I bring to the [moment of] birth and not cause to bring forth? says the Lord. Shall I Who causes to bring forth shut the womb? says your God.
Blessings to the Father!:
Prov 17:6 Children’s children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers.
Ps 128:3 Thy wife [shall be] as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table.- The fruitful vine here is childbearing- again a blessing from God
OKAY, HERE’S A KICKER FOR YA- TALKING ABOUT A MAN’S SEED BEING POTENTIAL CHILDREN – , Ps 147:13 For he hath strengthened the bars of thy gates; he hath BLESSED YOUR CHILDREN WITHIN YOU!
Speaking of a man’s seed…. here’s one for you about how it’s not Kosher for a guy to get rid of his while with a woman just so she won’t get pregnant: 🙂 (btw I know this is a weird topic..
Gen. 38:8 Then Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her; raise up offspring for your brother.’ 9 But since Onan knew that the offspring would not be his, he spilled his semen on the ground whenever he went in to see his brother’s wife, so that he would not give offspring tohis brother
. 10 What he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also
For centuries Christians have sited this verse as the major reason not to use birth control-as spilling a man’s seed is so displeasing to God that he killed a man because he did. Somewhere around the mid 19th century people began to kind of ignore or explain this away, but me being old fashioned… lol tend to go with what Christians have believed for 1,000’s of yrs rather then what they’ve kind of white washed since the 60’s. 🙂
Jer 22:30 Write ye this man childless, a man [that] shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.(Curse to not have children through your seed)
Acts 7:5 And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not [so much as] to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when [as yet] he had no child.
Many will agree that abortion is wrong and that The Supreme Court has no constitutional right, no constitutional authority to give authority to doctors and woman to kill. The only time the government can authorize any American to kill is in self-defense when under attack by a person using a lethal weapon and when the country is under attack by someone attacking the country, whether from with-in or with-out.As for abortion, you know, if a child is not supposed to live, let God kill it, like with David and Bathsheba (not sure if you know this story or not, but David was kind and saw her bathing and called her to him, even though she was married. The she got pregnant and he called her husband from off the battlefield and told him to sleep with his wife but the guy wouldn’t leave his post- so David put the guy on the front lines, knowing he would die…yeah, not good) you could say David forced himself on her, but it was sin and that baby died, God took care of it even though David wanted the baby to be born and prayed and fasted 3 days to no avail.
I had a right to be born, you had a right to be. One more time… 🙂 the Bible says in Mal 2 that the purpose of God bringing a man and woman together is to bring forth a godly seed
15And did not God make [you and your wife] one [flesh]? Did not One make you and preserve your spirit alive? And why [did God make you two] one? Because He sought a godly offspring [from your union].
Okay, so I told you that me and Mother Theresa had some things in common, she said
“The way to plan the family is natural family planning not contraception. In destroying the power of giving life, through contraception, a husband or wife is doing something to self, and so it destroys the gift of life in him or her”
“Once that living love is destroyed by contraception, abortion follows very easily”
“You know, people worry all the time about innocent children being killed in wars, and they try to prevent this. But what hope is there is stopping it if mothers kill their own children? Every life is precious to God, whatever the circumstances. In Isaiah, chapter 43, verse 4, God says, ‘You are precious to me and I love you’.”
Okay, so here are two little quotes, and I don’t give them much credence, but I think they are funny
“It sounds strange for me to be saying this, but I’ve come around to the idea that sex really is for procreation.”
Barbara Walters TV special, Mel Gibson stated his opposition to birth control, infidelity and abortion. He said, “God is the only one who knows how many children we should have, and we should be ready to accept them. One can’t decide for oneself who comes into this world and who doesn’t. That decision doesn’t belong to us.” (Okay- so we know what happened there, but….)
l little Mother Theresa quotes, my favorite of which is “how can there be too many children, that is like saying there are too many flowers…” 🙂
Ah… I’m done… lol I guess I just see a marriage as God bringing two people together, sharing a life, and having children. Not sure even after all this having kids as he sees fit- it seems like throughout the Bible he’s pretty good at that.
I know people worry about college tuition, how to feed and clothe, attention, ect. But I’ve known quite a few large families- and you know what? They might not all have exactly as much “stuff” wise as 1 or 2 child homes- but they had something I’ve always wanted LOVE! 🙂 I have two home school families in mind that each had 5 kids…
When I read in Hebrews chs 11-12, as I’m sure you know it well as it is the “Hall of Fame of Faith.” We see our heroes in the Word of God and I try to live my life by their great faith added with the “promise they saw afar off, ” that is, Jesus Christ. I take my cue from them, ESPECIALLY when concerning things such as marriage and birth control. Society and traditions are different, but the Lord God is the same “yesterday, today, and forever.”
One key thing is the use of eunuchs and virgins to say “If God wants us blessed with children so much, why would he say it is better not to marry?”
Well, that is an easy one. Eunuchs are said to be “dry trees” and lament the fact they cannot produce fruit- children. God, sees this and (Is 56) promises to give them a name in the Lord if they follow God with all their heart! We see throughout the Bible it is seen as a shame to not be a fruitful man and woman when married- ie, having children. Yes, in 1 Cor 7 we see it is better to remain single as single people can serve the Lord ‘without distraction.’ Michelle and I know this to be true. We feel blessed either way, as I know married people cannot do what we can do in the Lord. There is a distraction there, when you are married men and women look to each other’s needs and the “needs of their household first.” Why? Because marriages, for the most part, are about bringing forth “a Godly seed.” 🙂 When I look to my patriarchs, I ask myself, “what would they do, would they DREAM about stopping up even ONE avenue of God’s blessing?” Nope! Not a single one. I see God as the giver of life and that marriage and matrimonial acts bring two together as one, but to take and kill that life force- through Onanism as the Jewish people call “spilling the seed”- and compare it to homosexuality or worse as I have quoted below- is a sin.
If God doesn’t “forbid something explicitly,” I look to what others did in the Bible FOR something. We don’t see child porn or even abortion specifically forbidden- it’s in the spirit of the Word. And the spirit of the Word speaks VOLUMES that, under no circumstances did anyone in the Bible EVER try to stop themselves from being pregnant- only Onan, and God put him to death. I see that God never asked anyone to have sexual relations and then have them pray “Lord, please do not bring a child from this act.” Which is exactly what a couple is doing when they use any form of birth control. God is very concerned with every area of our lives- down to “what we eat or drink or our bodies what we put on.” He goes on to even tell us what to do when eating at parties that served food to idols. YES, God Cares, and has a plan for every area of our lives. He tells us not to drink too much, not to be gluttons, to open our homes and be hospitable. He doesn’t leave anything out. Remember, the womb is a special place “before I was in the womb, you knew me.” Now, if God knows people before they are in the womb, who are we to say that they can’t come to life! Marriage is holy and the “act” is holy- if people are barren, then they should pray, like every barren woman in the Bible, for “God to open the womb.” It is not up to us, but up to God whether we have “many or few.”
Most people think birth control is a modern thing but it has been around for-EVER! 🙂 I would encourage you to put aside what you know in today’s materialistic world and listen to what all the earlier churches have said for centuries! You cannot get to God by going through lots of people, but really, only, through God. Up until 1930, both Catholic and Protestant Churches saw birth control as sinful and a crime- just like we view abortion. They felt that the natural union of man and wife should be left that way- natural. As, you will read below, the “gentil” areas really means “generation.” They were seen as life generation machines. These early church leaders have so much wisdom.
🙂 I go with some of the Catholic teachings because in the early church- it was all “catholic” lol 🙂 We both know that the foundational teachings are all Biblical- when you read the names John Calvin, Martin Luther, and St. Augustine- these are THE BIG DOGS- totally full of the power of God! 🙂
If you don’t read anything that I type, please read this link all the way through to the end.
Men like Martin Luther (the reformer credited with beginning the Protestant Reformation) likened birth control to sodomy, declaring:
“People who do not like children are swine, dunces, and blockheads, not worthy to be called men and women, because they despise the blessing of God, the Creator and Author of marriage”
Likewise, John Calvin (one of the most prominent theologians of the Protestant Reformation), clearly called it murder in stating that:
“The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”
“..birth control is the murder of future persons.”
Unlike those who rationalize it away in our day, these men understood the very mindset behind this act, and they didn’t mince words about exactly what the act meant. It’s only in our day of Christian degradation that preachers, in fear of losing members (and in their political correctness), tap dance around this practice.
The Synod of Dort of 1618, issued a Bible commentary which compared birth control to abortion, stating:
“This was even as much, as if he had (in a manner) pulled forth the fruit out of the mother’s womb, and destroyed it.”
No one needs to work very hard to testify of the great list of those who opposed birth control, because the list includes just about everyone! It is evident that all historical Church fathers unanimously opposed birth control. Since the beginning, the Church held that birth control was a clear unbiblical practice (for over 1900 years). All the Church fathers, Catholic, Anglican, and Protestant Reformers alike, all, opposed the use of birth control. In fact, absolutely no Christian group or denomination ever supported this unbiblical use of contraceptives until 1930. It was there at the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops that a break in this unanimous Historical Church teaching occurred with their passing of Resolution 15. This resolution reads:
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
Voting: For 193; Against 67.
Even in this you can hear the strong aversion to birth control, but the point is, from there the floodgates were opened. Though many Protestant denominations at the time vociferously denounced this move, it wasn’t long before even these other Churches caved in to the pressures of modernity, and followed suit. What was once family relationships based on biblical precepts now switched to, “clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood,” (whatever that means). But no one cared what it meant, because it was a convenient excuse to use, in man’s quest to circumvent God’s precepts and limit births. And despite the trailer against, “methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience,” that is exactly what it has grown to be used for. Another stark example of what happens once you open a small crack in the proverbial wall, or open the Pandora’s box. Even if one’s original motives may have been (humanly speaking) noble but misguided, it inevitably brings ruin. That is why we must give no quarter to the weakening of God’s laws, or of making exceptions, because they inevitably lead to Church decline and even apostasy. A small opening always leads to a gaping hole. The word of God must be strictly kept, and we must not deviate even an inch.
I love what Charles Spurgeon says about Psalms 128
|1||Blessed is every one that feareth the LORD; that walketh in his ways.|
|2||For thou shalt eat the labor of thine hands: happy shalt thou be,and it shall be well with thee.|
|3||Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine|
by the sides of thine house:thy children like olive plantsround about thy table.
|4||Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the LORD.|
|5||The LORD shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalemall the days of thy life.|
|6||Yea, thou shalt see thy children’s children, and peace upon Israel.|
Verse 3. Thy wife. To reach the full of earthly felicity a man must not be alone. A helpmeet was needed in Paradise, and assuredly she is not less necessary out of it. He that findeth a wife findeth a good thing. It is not every man that feareth the Load who has a wife; but if he has, she shall share in his blessedness and increase it. Shall be as a fruitful vine. To complete domestic bliss children are sent. They come as the lawful fruit of marriage, even as clusters appear upon the vine. For the grapes the vine was planted; for children was the wife provided. It is generally well with any creature when it fulfils its purpose, and it is so far well with married people when the great design of their union is brought about. They must not look upon fruitfulness as a burden, but as a blessing. Good wives are also fruitful in kindness, thrift, helpfulness, and affection: if they bear no children, they are by no means barren if they yield us the wine of consolation and the clusters of comfort. Truly blessed is the man whose wife is fruitful in those good works which are suitable to her near and dear position. By the sides of thine house. She keeps to the house: she is a home bird. Some imagine that she is like a vine which is nailed up to the house wall; but they have no such custom in Palestine, neither is it pleasant to think of a wife as growing up by a wall, and as bound to the very bricks and mortar of her husband’s dwelling. No, she is a fruitful vine, and a faithful housekeeper; if you wish to find her, she is within the house: she is to be found both inside and outside the home, but her chief usefulness is in the inner side of the dwelling, which she adorns. Eastern houses usually have an open square in the centre, and the various rooms are ranged around the sides,—there shall the wife be found, busy in one room or another, as the hour of the day demands. She keeps at home, and so keeps the home. It is her husband’s house, and she is her husband’s; us the text puts it—”thy wife”, and “thy house”; but by her loving care her husband is made so happy that he is glad to own her as an equal proprietor with himself, for he is hers, and the house is hers too.
He says, like I believe, that women can still be a blessing to their husbands in other ways if she cannot have children, but that children are not financial burdens like people see them today- they are not something you need to “save up until you feel you have enough money” to have. Certainly, putting off having children so a person and their spouse can have :fun without kids” first- is completely un-Biblical and lustful and sinful. If a man sees his wife as a fruitful vine- he will want her to “bare much fruit” and he will not stop up himself or ask his wife to stop up her God given gift of fertility! Children are a blessing and “blessed is a man whose quiver or a container holding arrows- is FULL OF THEM. I do not see a full bag of arrows being one, two, or even 3- but FULL AND OVERFLOWING- with AS MANY AS IT CAN FIT!!! 🙂
Here are some intense, very explicit but RIGHT ON quotes from more early Christian leaders. I don’t usually quote people, but when I find holy men of God whose voice speak through the test of time, I will. Like America’s Godly founding fathers. Most of them had large families.
Tradition / Church Fathers
“Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’” Letter of Barnabas 10:8 (A.D. 74).
“Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2 (A.D. 191).
“To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 2:10:95:3 (A.D. 191).
“[Christian women with male concubines], on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered.” Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 (A.D. 225).
“[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife.”Lactantius, Divine Institutes 6:20 (A.D. 307).
“God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital [’generating’] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring.” Lactantius, Divine 6:23:18 (A.D. 307).
“[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy.” Council of Nicaea I, Canon 1 (A.D. 325).
“They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption.” Epiphanius of Salamis, Medicine Chest Against Heresies 26:5:2 (A.D. 375).
“This proves that you [Manicheans] approve of having a wife, not for the procreation of children, but for the gratification of passion. In marriage, as the marriage law declares, the man and woman come together for the procreation of children. Therefore, whoever makes the procreation of children a greater sin than copulation, forbids marriage and makes the woman not a wife but a mistress, who for some gifts presented to her is joined to the man to gratify his passion.” Augustine, The Morals of the Manichees 18:65 (A.D. 388).
“Why do you sow where the field is eager to destroy the fruit, where there are medicines of sterility [oral contraceptives], where there is murder before birth? You do not even let a harlot remain only a harlot, but you make her a murderess as well…Indeed, it is something worse than murder, and I do not know what to call it; for she does not kill what is formed but prevents its formation. What then? Do you condemn the gift of God and fight with his [natural] laws?…Yet such turpitude…the matter still seems indifferent to many men—even to many men having wives. In this indifference of the married men there is greater evil filth; for then poisons are prepared, not against the womb of a prostitute, but against your injured wife. Against her are these innumerable tricks.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 24 (A.D. 391).
“[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father’s old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 28:5 (A.D. 391).
“[T]he man who has mutilated himself, in fact, is subject even to a curse, as Paul says, ‘I would that they who trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]. And very reasonably, for such a person is venturing on the deeds of murderers, and giving occasion to them that slander God’s creation, and opens the mouths of the Manicheans, and is guilty of the same unlawful acts as they that mutilate themselves among the Greeks. For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 62:3 (A.D. 391).
“But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?” Jerome, Against Jovinian 1:19 (A.D. 393).
“Observe how bitterly he [Paul] speaks against their deceivers…‘I would that they which trouble you would cut the whole thing off’ [Gal. 5:12]…On this account he curses them, and his meaning is as follows: ‘For them I have no concern, “A man that is heretical after the first and second admonition refuse” [Titus 3:10]. If they will, let them not only be circumcised but mutilated.’ Where then are those who dare to mutilate themselves, seeing that they draw down the apostolic curse, and accuse the workmanship of God, and take part with the Manichees?” John Chrysostom, Commentary on Galatians 5:12 (A.D. 395).
“You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion].” Jerome, Letters 22:13 (A.D. 396).
“You [Manicheans] make your auditors adulterers of their wives when they take care lest the women with whom they copulate conceive. They take wives according to the laws of matrimony by tablets announcing that the marriage is contracted to procreate children; and then, fearing because of your law [against childbearing]…they copulate in a shameful union only to satisfy lust for their wives. They are unwilling to have children, on whose account alone marriages are made. How is it, then, that you are not those prohibiting marriage, as the apostle predicted of you so long ago [1 Tim. 4:1–4], when you try to take from marriage what marriage is? When this is taken away, husbands are shameful lovers, wives are harlots, bridal chambers are brothels, fathers-in-law are pimps.” Augustine, Against Faustus 15:7 (A.D. 400).
“For thus the eternal law, that is, the will of God creator of all creatures, taking counsel for the conservation of natural order, not to serve lust, but to see to the preservation of the race, permits the delight of mortal flesh to be released from the control of reason in copulation only to propagate progeny.” Augustine, Against Faustus 22:30 (A.D. 400).
“For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting [children] is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity no longer follows reason but lust. And yet it pertains to the character of marriage…to yield it to the partner lest by fornication the other sin damnably [through adultery]…[T]hey [must] not turn away from them the mercy of God…by changing the natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnable when it is done in the case of husband or wife. For, whereas that natural use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessity of begetting [children], is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case of a harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the case of a harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the Creator, and the order of creation, that . . . when the man shall wish to use a body part of the wife not allowed for this purpose [orally or anally consummated sex], the wife is more shameful, if she suffer it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another woman.” Augustine, The Good of Marriage 11–12 (A.D. 401).
“I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility…Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife.” Augustine, Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17 (A.D. 419).
“Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a woman does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman.” Caesarius of Arles, Sermons 1:12 (A.D. 522).
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/contraception.html– here’s the link I got these from and at the top are scriptures which are TOTALLY worth reading today!! ( I was just soo stoked and excited when I read these!!!!:)
Gen 1:28, 9:1,7; 35:11 – from the beginning, the Lord commands us to be fruitful (“fertile”) and multiply. A husband and wife fulfill God’s plan for marriage in the bringing forth of new life, for God is life itself.
Gen. 28:3 – Isaac’s prayer over Jacob shows that fertility and procreation are considered blessings from God.
Gen. 38:8-10 – Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.
Gen. 38:11-26 – Judah, like Onan, also rejected God’s command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed.
Deut. 25:7-10 – the penalty for refusing to keep up a family lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting seed.
Gen. 38:9 – also, the author’s usage of the graphic word “seed,” which is very uncharacteristic for Hebrew writing, further highlights the reason for Onan’s death.
Exodus 23:25-26; Deut. 7:13-14 – God promises blessings which include no miscarriages or barrenness. Children are blessings from God, and married couples must always be open to God’s plan for new life with every act of marital intimacy.
Lev.18:22-23;20:13 – wasting seed with non-generative sexual acts warrants death. Many Protestant churches, which have all strayed from the Catholic Church, reject this fundamental truth (few Protestants and Catholics realize that contraception was condemned by all of Christianity – and other religions – until the Anglican church permitted it in certain cases at the Lambeth conference in 1930. This opened the floodgates of error).
Lev. 21:17,20 – crushed testicles are called a defect and a blemish before God. God reveals that deliberate sterilization and any other methods which prevent conception are intrinsically evil.
Deut. 23:1 – whoever has crushed testicles or is castrated cannot enter the assembly. Contraception is objectively sinful and contrary, not only to God’s Revelation, but the moral and natural law.
Deut. 25:11-12 – there is punishment for potential damage to the testicles, for such damage puts new life at risk. It, of course, follows that vasectomies, which are done with willful consent, are gravely contrary to the natural law.
1 Chron. 25:5 – God exalts His people by blessing them with many children. When married couples contracept, they are declaring “not your will God, but my will be done.”
Psalm 127:3-5 – children are a gift of favor from God and blessed is a full quiver. Married couples must always be open to God’s precious gift of life. Contraception, which shows a disregard for human life, has lead to the great evils of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide.
Hosea 9:11; Jer. 18:21 – God punishes Israel by preventing pregnancy. Contraception is a curse, and married couples who use contraception are putting themselves under the same curse.
Mal. 2:14 – marriage is not a contract (which is a mere exchange of property or services). It is a covenant, which means a supernatural exchange of persons. Just as God is three in one, so are a husband and wife, who become one flesh and bring forth new life, three in one. Marital love is a reflection of the Blessed Trinity.
Mal. 2:15 – What does God desire? Godly offspring. What is contraception? A deliberate act against God’s will. With contraception, a couple declares, “God may want an eternal being created with our union, but we say no.” Contraception is a grave act of selfishness.
Matt. 19:5-6 – Jesus said a husband and wife shall become one. They are no longer two, but one, just as God is three persons, yet one. The expression of authentic marital love reintegrates our bodies and souls to God, and restores us to our original virginal state (perfect integration of body and soul) before God.
Matt. 19:6; Eph. 5:31 – contraception prevents God’s ability to “join” together. Just as Christ’s love for the Church is selfless and sacrificial, and a husband and wife reflect this union, so a husband and wife’s love for each other must also be selfless and sacrificial. This means being open to new life.
Acts 5:1-11 – Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.
Rom.1:26-27 – sexual acts without the possibility of procreation is sinful. Self-giving love is life-giving love, or the love is a lie. The unitive and procreative elements of marital love can never be divided, or the marital love is also divided, and God is left out of the marriage.
1 Cor. 6:19-20 – the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; thus, we must glorify God in our bodies by being open to His will.
1 Cor. 7:5 – this verse supports the practice of natural family planning (“NFP”). Married couples should not refuse each other except perhaps by agreement for a season, naturally.
Gal. 6:7-8 – God is not mocked for what a man sows. If to the flesh, corruption. If to the Spirit, eternal life.
Eph. 5:25 – Paul instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, by giving his entire body to her and holding nothing back. With contraception, husbands tell their wives, I love you except your fertility, and you can have me except for my fertility. This love is a lie because it is self-centered, and not self-giving and life-giving.
Eph. 5:29-31; Phil. 3:2 – mutilating the flesh (e.g., surgery to prevent conception) is gravely sinful. Many Protestant churches reject this most basic moral truth.
1 Tim. 2:15 – childbearing is considered a “work” through which women may be saved by God’s grace.
Deut. 22:13-21 – these verses also show that God condemns pre-marital intercourse. The living expression of God’s creative love is reserved for a sacramental marriage between one man and one woman.
Rev. 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Gal. 5:20 – these verses mention the word “sorcery.” The Greek word is “pharmakeia” which includes abortifacient potions such as birth control pills. These pharmakeia are mortally sinful. Moreover, chemical contraception does not necessarily prevent conception, but may actually kill the child in the womb after conception has occurred (by preventing the baby from attaching to the uterine wall). Contraception is a lie that has deceived millions, but the Church is holding her arms open wide to welcome back her children who have strayed from the truth.
also read this on the traditional Jewish teaching- as Christians are all Jewish!! 🙂
The classical Jewish commentators – who can scarcely be accused of ignorance regarding Hebrew language, customs, law, and biblical literary genres – certainly saw in this passage of Scripture a condemnation of both unnatural intercourse and masturbation such.8 A typical traditional Jewish commentary puts it thus: “[Onan misused the organs God gave him for propagating the race to unnaturally satisfy his own lust, and he was therefore deserving death.”9 And this is undoubtedly in accord with the natural impression which most unprejudiced readers will draw from the text of Genesis 38.
Harrison’s sources for these particular quotations are:
8 The Encyclopedia Judaica (Vol.4,p.1054, article “Birth Control”) states: “Jewish tradition ascribed the practice of birth control to the depraved humanity before Noah (Gen. R. 23:2,4; Rashi to Gen. 4:19,23).” (For further confirmation of Jewish views on this point, cf. H. Hirsch Cohen, The Drunkenness of Noah [University of Alabama Press.].) The Encyclopedia article adds that on the basis of Gen. 38:9-10, “the Talmud sternly inveighs against ‘bringing forth the seed in vain’, considering it a cardinal sin (Nid. 13a). . . .Strictly Orthodox [Jews, . . . . for religious reasons, refuse to resort to birth control.” In the same Encyclopedia, under “Onanism” (Vol. 12, p.1495), it is stated that the act of Onan “is taken . . . by the Talmud (Yev. 34b) to refer either to unnatural intercourse or (cf. Nid. 13a) to masturbation. The Zohar [a13th century work] expatiates on the evil of onanism in the second sense.”
Today most people can only give one or two scriptures to back up their viewpoint that under some circumstances birth control is okay, and in those they were not used in context and had no bearing on whether married couples should have children or not, thus, there is no scriptural or traditional use by Christians for centuries that says stopping up or preventing children from being born is ever okay or God’s will. However, people, from the beginning of time have not wanted to use intercourse the natural way and tried to harm their bodies through poison (all pills today) or other unnatural means. To lie with one’s wife only for pleasure, is a lustful thing, sinful, and it is better to not commit the act then to stop up it’s original purpose. We are not alone in saying that it is a murderous thing to lie with your spouse and kill the seed- stop a child from coming into this world.
Also, one more thing, the Bible says, “whatever is not done in faith is a sin.”Unless a couple can come together and PRAY for God NOT to bless the “fruit of their womb,” and to close it up, until THEY say THEY are ready, with the SAME AMOUNT OF FAITH AND FERVENCY that a couple PRAYING FOR children would do, then you are NOT LIVING BY FAITH- you are LIVING IN FEAR, for whatever reason you don’t want to have that child. You also said that God does not tell us what toothpaste to use. J However, God does care about all the little things. We live by faith EVERYDAY, asking for God’s provision and instruction in everything we do. Hey, I even believe he leads my grocery shopping to make me a frugal, Provs 31 woman!
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
The Historic Christian Teaching
Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.
Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources that will be examined in this tract.
Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as “natural law.” The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.
But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.
Is contraception a modern invention? Hardly! Birth control has been around for millennia. Scrolls found in Egypt, dating to 1900 B.C., describe ancient methods of birth control that were later practiced in the Roman empire during the apostolic age. Wool that absorbed sperm, poisons that fumigated the uterus, potions, and other methods were used to prevent conception. In some centuries, even condoms were used (though made out of animal skin rather than latex).
The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother. “Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also” (Gen. 38:8–10).
The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).
Contraception was so far outside the biblical mindset and so obviously wrong that it did not need the frequent condemnations other sins did. Scripture condemns the practice when it mentions it. Once a moral principle has been established in the Bible, every possible application of it need not be mentioned. For example, the general principle that theft is wrong was clearly established in Scripture; but there’s no need to provide an exhaustive list of every kind of theft. Similarly, since the principle that contraception is wrong has been established by being condemned when it’s mentioned in the Bible, every particular form of contraception does not need to be dealt with in Scripture in order for us to see that it is condemned.
The biblical teaching that birth control is wrong is found even more explicitly among the Church Fathers, who recognized the biblical and natural law principles underlying the condemnation.
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted” (The Instructor of Children 2:10:91:2).
Hippolytus of Rome wrote in 255 that “on account of their prominent ancestry and great property, the so-called faithful [certain Christian women who had affairs with male servants] want no children from slaves or lowborn commoners, [so] they use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies9:12).
Around 307 Lactantius explained that some “complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife” (Divine Institutes 6:20).
The First Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council and the one that defined Christ’s divinity, declared in 325, “If anyone in sound health has castrated himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy” (Canon 1).
Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).
The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”
John Calvin said, “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”
John Wesley warned, “Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.” (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)
The Church also, fulfilling the role given it by Christ as the identifier and interpreter of apostolic Scripture and apostolic tradition, has constantly condemned contraception as gravely sinful.
In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI stated, “[W]e must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth. Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (HV 14).
This was reiterated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “[E]very action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil” (CCC 2370). “Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means . . . for example, direct sterilization or contraception” (CCC 2399).
The Church also has affirmed that the illicitness of contraception is an infallible doctrine: “The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative.aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive.aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life” (Vademecum for Confessors 2:4, Feb. 12, 1997).
Pope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception. He warned, “Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion” (HV 17).
No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the “free love” movement that started in the 1960s, and the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture.
Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than in those marriages where it is not. Experience, natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, all testify to the moral evil of contraception.
Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their “individual conscience.” Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.
There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called “individual conscience” argument amounts to “individual disobedience
More teachings on God’s blessing of families