Do JWs women use Birth Control?

Advertisement

Viewed 11152 times

    Mr. Monday Night posted Fri, 08 Jan 2010 00:58:00 GMT(1/8/2010)

    Post 32 of 42
    Joined 11/10/2009

    Do JWs women use Birth Control?

    I always wanted to know what their views were on Birth Control. Does anyone know?

    Ciao,

    MMN

    Farkel posted Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:08:00 GMT(1/8/2010)

    Post 10157 of 11719
    Joined 3/14/2001

    My JW former wife did, using the pill. That was in the late 1960's and there was no Pharisaical sanction against it.

    There were three good things about that: 1) she didn't get pregnant, 2) her periods were very regular and 3) she always knew which day of the month it was.

    Farkel

    believingxjw posted Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:12:00 GMT(1/8/2010)

    Post 94 of 503
    Joined 6/11/2009

    Of course JW women are allowed to use birth control! The Bethelites don't want kids do they?

    Farkel posted Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:17:00 GMT(1/8/2010)

    Post 10159 of 11719
    Joined 3/14/2001

    :The Bethelites don't want kids do they?

    No, they don't. There are already way too many candidates for the Darwin Awards.

    Farkel

    M treadnh2o posted Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:18:00 GMT(1/8/2010)

    Post 736 of 834
    Joined 4/26/2008

    However, if a brother gets a vasectomy and someone is stumbled he may lose the ability to "serve" in the congregation.

    It supposedly shows a lack of respect for the reproductive organs.....(but a condom is ok? yup)

    Never could figure that one out. Also never heard of anyone getting in trouble for it.

    They always use the excuse " It was for a medical reason"

    No s**t... my kids are driving my crazy too!

    ziddina posted Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:49:00 GMT(1/8/2010)

    Post 745 of 10377
    Joined 4/8/2009

    When I was still married to a JW, the 'pill' was frowned upon, but not banned outright - another example of 'using one's own conscience'... Anything that approached the abortion issue - and the 'pill' causes a first-month hormonally-induced 'spontaneous' abortion - was viewed as taking a human life... Things like IUDs were also frowned upon, as was a 'tubal ligation', which was my birth-control of choice once I escaped the WTBTS...

    While still a JW, I took the pill anyway... Deep down, the thought of being chained to that JW hubby because 'we' had a child together was WAAAY more frightening than breaking any of 'gawd's' laws - I knew I wanted out, and also knew that having offspring would slow me down [in escaping the WTBTS...] or lock me into the JW lifestyle...

    Zid

    truthseekeriam posted Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:22:00 GMT(1/8/2010)

    Post 231 of 1077
    Joined 5/13/2009

    I was on the pill until my husband got a vasectomy.

    F restrangled posted Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:33:00 GMT(1/8/2010)

    Post 6078 of 6498
    Joined 6/10/2006

    I never had to, was told I was lucky to get Pregnant both times. (I lost a baby in between my boys)....I wonder if I had a little girl.

    r.

    M flipper posted Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:37:00 GMT(1/8/2010)

    Post 8668 of 17731
    Joined 3/7/2007

    Why would JW women need to use birth control ? They don't even have sex for Christ's sakes ! I know- I was married to one for 19 years. We had 3 children through osmosis and luck. Peace out, Mr. Flipper

    hecouldbewrong posted Fri, 08 Jan 2010 02:48:00 GMT(1/8/2010)

    Post 21 of 48
    Joined 10/18/2009

    Three kids? You must have been batting a thousand!

    F blondie posted Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:24:00 GMT(1/8/2010)

    Post 28515 of 37880
    Joined 5/28/2001

    *** fy chap. 5 pp. 52-53 par. 5 Train Your Child From Infancy ***Does your community expect a woman to give birth to as many children as possible? Rightfully, how many children a married couple have is their personal decision. What if parents lack the means to feed, clothe, and educate numerous children? Surely, the couple should consider this when deciding on the size of their family. Some couples who cannot support all their children entrust relatives with the responsibility to raise some of them. Is this practice desirable? Not really. And it does not relieve the parents of their obligation toward their children. The Bible says: "If anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith." (1 Timothy 5:8) Responsible couples try to plan the size of their "household" so that they can ‘provide for those who are their own.’ Can they practice birth control in order to do this? That too is a personal decision, and if married couples do decide on this course, the choice of contraceptive is also a personal matter. "Each one will carry his own load." (Galatians 6:5) However, birth control that involves any form of abortion goes contrary to Bible principles. Jehovah God is "the source of life." (Psalm 36:9) Therefore, to snuff out a life after it has been conceived would show gross disrespect for Jehovah and is tantamount to murder.—Exodus 21:22, 23; Psalm 139:16; Jeremiah 1:5.

    *** w89 6/15 p. 29 Questions From Readers ***

    Is it compatible with Bible principles for a Christian married couple to use birth control pills?The Scriptures do not clearly say that Christian couples are obliged to have children or, if they do, how many. Each couple should privately and responsibly determine whether to try to regulate the size of their family. If they agree to practice birth control, their choice of contraceptives is also a personal matter. However, they ought to consider—in accord with their understanding of the Bible and their conscience—whether using a certain method would show respect for the sanctity of life.

    The Bible indicates that a person’s life begins at conception; the Life-Giver sees the life that has been conceived, "even the embryo" that will thereafter develop in the womb. (Psalm 139:16; Exodus 21:22, 23; Jeremiah 1:5) Hence, no effort should be made to end a conceived life. To do so would be abortion.

    Birth control pills are widely used around the world. How do they prevent childbirth? There are two major types of pills—the combinationpill and the progestin-onlypill (minipill). Research has clarified their primary mechanisms for preventing births.

    The combination pill contains the hormones estrogen and progestin. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, "the primary mechanism" of the combination pill is "inhibition of ovulation." It seems that when taken consistently, this type of pill almost always prevents the release of an egg from the ovary. When no egg or ovum is released, conception cannot occur in the Fallopian tubes. While this type of pill may also cause changes in "the endometrium [lining of the womb] (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)," this is considered a secondary mechanism.

    In order to reduce side effects, combination pills containing lower doses of estrogen have been developed. Apparently, these low-dose combination pills allow more activity in the ovaries. Dr. Gabriel Bialy, chief of the Contraceptive Development Branch of the National Institutes of Health, says: "The preponderance of scientific evidence indicates that even with the low-estrogen pill, ovulation is blocked, not 100 percent, but most likely around 95 percent. But the mere fact that ovulation occurs is not tantamount to saying that fertilization has occurred."

    If a woman misses taking the combination pill according to its designed schedule, there is an increased possibility that the secondary mechanism will play a role in preventing births. A study of women who missed two of the low-dose pills found that 36 percent had "escape" ovulations. The journal Contraception reports that in such cases the "effects of pills on the endometrium and cervical mucus may continue to provide . . . contraceptive protection."

    What of the other type of pill—the progestin-only pill (minipill)? DrugEvaluations (1986) reports: "Inhibition of ovulation is not a prominent feature of contraception with progestin-only minipills. These agents cause formation of a thick cervical mucus that is relatively impenetrable to sperm; they may increase tubal transport time and also cause endometrial involution [which would hinder the development of any fertilized ovum]."

    Some researchers claim that with the progestin-only pill, "normal ovulation occurs in over 40% of users." So this pill frequently allows ovulation. The thickened mucus at the cervix may block passage of sperm and thus not permit conception; if not, the hostile environment that the pill creates in the womb might prevent the fertilized ovum from implanting and developing into a child.

    It can be appreciated, then, that when used regularly for birth control, both main types of pills seem to prevent conceptions from occurring in most cases and thus are not abortive. However, since the progestin-only pill (minipill) more frequently permits ovulation, there is a greater possibility that it sometimes prevents a birth by interfering with the implantation in the womb of a conceived life that has begun. Scientific studies indicate that normally (with a womb unaffected by birth control pills) "sixty per cent of fertilized eggs are . . . lost before the first missed period." That this happens, though, is quite different from choosing to use a method of birth control that is more likely to impede implantation of a fertilized ovum.

    Hence, there are definite moral aspects to consider if a couple discuss with a physician the matter of using birth control pills. Christians should resolve even private and personal questions so as to maintain a "perfectly clear conscience" before our God and Life-Giver.—Acts 23:1; Galatians 6:5.

    F Lady Lee posted Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:30:00 GMT(1/8/2010)

    Post 13854 of 14200
    Joined 6/29/2001

    It's been a while for me but here is the scoop from someone who had real issues with this.

    Any form of contraceptive that prevents the sperm reaching the egg is allowed, The pill fits in here because there is no egg. Condoms and diaphragms would also fall into this category.

    Pills that do not prevent conception, like the morning after pill, would be forbidden. IUDs do not prevent conception, They prevent implantation. Not accepted.

    As for surgical means for either the woman or man is iffy and a conscience matter. After my second pregnancy (high risk) the Drs said I would never be able to carry another baby to term and could die trying. So we had a lot of discussion with the elders and research in the litterature. What it boiled down to was this:

    Since I could never have another child I should have the surgery despite the fact that it was more risky. If I married again (should something happen to my husband) I still would not be able to have more children.

    If something happened to me and he remarried he might want more children so it was reasonable for him to NOT have the surgery. For those who knew about our decision we made it clear that this was for serious health reasons and not just a means of birth control.

    So much to do about so little

    cskyjw.sun posted Sat, 03 Apr 2010 05:55:00 GMT(4/3/2010)

    Post 20 of 134
    Joined 3/29/2010

    individual conscience

    crazy2try posted Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:25:00 GMT(4/3/2010)

    Post 27 of 108
    Joined 3/20/2010

    I was on the pill just before my hubby and I got married 14 yrs ago. I went off it when we wanted to have children. About 5 yrs ago, he got a vas, we didn't bring the elders into it. I don't think we even considered doing that. When I told some of our witnesse friends, non of them acted like it was wrong.

    F nelly136 posted Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:50:00 GMT(4/3/2010)

    Post 3048 of 3741
    Joined 12/14/2000

    i remember years back there was an awake article about birth control that explained the IUD coil was like having an abortion as it allowed the egg to fertilise but not to attach, no idea which year but i read it sometime before i left.

    as there were a few rushed marriages when i was a dub i can only assume that they didnt always practise/know about contraception or it would have added to the premeditated sin factor.

    designs posted Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:56:00 GMT(4/3/2010)

    Post 975 of 19403
    Joined 6/17/2009

    We did, both kids were planned. Proud Papa!

    dgp posted Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:19:00 GMT(4/3/2010)

    Post 695 of 2767
    Joined 7/8/2009

    Marked.

    M SixofNine posted Sat, 03 Apr 2010 17:53:00 GMT(4/3/2010)

    Post 14244 of 14370
    Joined 12/17/2000

    Not nearly enough.

    BeBeKates posted Tue, 04 May 2010 09:12:00 GMT(5/4/2010)

    Post 1 of 3
    Joined 9/13/2009

    How about this new one ESSURE? It is implanted in the tubes and causes scarring,my ex-DIL is getting it, read it on her facebbok page. Funny BC discussed on the social networking site, both iffy unscriptual things.

    pirata posted Tue, 04 May 2010 19:51:00 GMT(5/4/2010)

    Post 84 of 1418
    Joined 12/31/2009

    Birth Control that involves non-reversible (or possibly non-reversible) "damaging" of the reproductive system is not allowed (ie. vasectomy). But if you got it done before the article came out that said it was wrong then you are grandfathered in.

    Birth Control that works after fertilization has taken place is not allowed.

    Birth Control that prevents fertilization is a conscience matter ie. Condoms, birth control pills.

    Having children is both unwise since we are so deep in the time of the end and a blessing from Jehovah.

      Close

      Confirm ...