Birth Control

Advertisement

Viewed 1958 times

    turtleturtle posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:46:02 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 73 of 209
    Joined 5/28/2012

    I have never understood why, according to the WT, JWs are okay (conscience matter) with birth control methods like the pill, mini-pill, Depo-Provera, and IUDs. I am not trying to spark an abortion debate. But I was actually angry at the WT when I started researching how the mini-pill prevented pregnancy. Research it for yourself! My spouse and I felt betrayed by the WT because they did not provide the proper spiritual food for us at the right time. I still remember praying and asking Jehovah for forgiveness for any life that was unknowingly aborted.

    So, the WT condemns those who accept a blood transfusion but make it a conscience matter to have an IUD which does the following:

    The IUD is generally accepted to work by causing the uterine lining (endometrium) to become incapable of accepting the implantation of an already fertilized ovum (i.e., a human embryo).

    From: http://www.canfp.org/artman/publish/article_330.shtml

    konceptual99 posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:58:10 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 119 of 1312
    Joined 7/18/2012

    Know an elders wife who had morning after pill. Keeping that one in my back pocket...

    turtleturtle posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:03:58 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 74 of 209
    Joined 5/28/2012

    yeah I know a MS wife who had the IUD.

    Niveau posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:09:49 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 8 of 12
    Joined 7/3/2012

    I don't get it... I mean, I'm assuming you're anti-abortion, but even if that's true, why would you have a problem with birth control methods that aren't abortificants?

    konceptual99 posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:20:19 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 121 of 1312
    Joined 7/18/2012

    Well, as I understand it (and I've not checked up on it recently) but you cannot be 100% sure with any post intercourse method of birth control that fertilisation has not occured. Of course different pills work in different ways but it's always been very very dodgy ground in my experience.

    If I've misunderstood it then let me know. I might even look it up in the WT lib to see what it has to say on it.

    matt2414 posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:21:36 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 62 of 167
    Joined 9/18/2011

    I used to be absolutely against abortion when I followed the Watchtower's party line. But after I did exhaustive research without the "aid" of Watchtower publications, I don't see any scriptures that prohibit it. That said, however, could it be that the JWs have softened their stand on abortion to be more in line with its policy on blood. For example, it's now OK to take in a little bit of blood, so maybe it's OK to have a little bit of an abortion. I'm just sayin'.

    M 144001 posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:26:28 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 2519 of 3013
    Joined 6/24/2002

    Smart ladies choose choice.

    F mrsjones5 posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:41:30 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 20167 of 19551
    Joined 10/13/2004

    " It is misleading, however, to speak of "a moment of conception" when sperm meets egg following sexual intercourse. Conception is not complete or viable until the fertilized egg is implanted in the uterus, which generally occurs about ten days to two weeks after ovulation.3 Up to fifty percent of fertilized eggs do not implant, and in those cases it is not possible to speak of conception.4 Except in cases of in vitro fertilization, it is impossible to know that fertilization has taken place until implantation occurs."

    " Up to fifty percent of fertilized eggs do not implant.18 Of those that do, between twenty percent and fifty percent miscarry.19 Of all implantations, only about ten percent are successful pregnancies.20 If there is objection to the prevention of implantation as a method of abortion, on the assumption that this is the taking of life, then nature or God would be the greatest killer, because there are more spontaneous preventions of implantation than those performed medically.

    http://www.christianethicstoday.com/cetart/index.cfm?fuseaction=Articles.main&ArtID=406

    Better get busy on the praying.

    Diest posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:48:20 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 1713 of 1701
    Joined 6/8/2011

    Well then start bitching about IVF too. Your views on the matter are rather Catholic. The JWs dont seem to hold the view that life starts at sperm and egg meeting, but rather implantation of the egg. I think you are on shaky ground trying to argue that life starts before implantation and cell division. Cell division does not start until 24-30 hrs after fertilization.

    turtleturtle posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:49:12 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 75 of 209
    Joined 5/28/2012

    Listen, I am just going by the WT standards. If I am not mistaken, the WT says life begins at conception. I don't see how they can make an IUD a conscience matter and make blood transfusions a DFing offense.

    F mrsjones5 posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:52:04 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 20168 of 19551
    Joined 10/13/2004

    Time to throw those standards out the window with all the other wt rubbish.

    turtleturtle posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:52:08 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 76 of 209
    Joined 5/28/2012

    The development of all the parts of an embryo begins at conception, when the ovum, or egg cell, of the woman is fertilized by a sperm cell of the man.

    This too indicates that according to the Bible, a child exists as a person from the time of his conception. Yes, that is when human life begins.

    http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102009202

    Hypocrites...

    F mrsjones5 posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 19:56:23 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 20169 of 19551
    Joined 10/13/2004

    " This too indicates that according to the Bible, a child exists as a person from the time of his conception. Yes, that is when human life begins."

    And according to the percentages up there most of that "life" ends soon after.

    The facts of life from the wt is dumbed down and incomplete.

    cofty posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:09:17 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 4613 of 13770
    Joined 12/19/2009

    I think you have made a very good point.

    The borg lack the courage to be consistent with their their own teaching on this matter.

    They assert life begins at fertilisation but fail to give a clear direction on contraception that primarily works by preventing implantation.

    Disclaimer - I am not arguing against abortion.

    perfect1 posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:32:30 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 237 of 1206
    Joined 8/8/2012

    I find this conversation appalling.

    What problem do you have with the pill.

    Go to your local Planned Parenthood- they do more than abortions- and get some real medical advice.

    matt2414 posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:49:56 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 66 of 167
    Joined 9/18/2011

    If life begins at conception, as the JWs believe, does that mean that God is going to resurrect all the dead embryos -- whether they were aborted by accident or on purpose -- back to the earth as part of the Great Crowd? If they are "life," wouldn't God be obligated to bring them back in order to be consistent with the "life-at-conception" dogma? How would he do that since embryos can't survive outside their mothers' bodies? Would the mothers be resurrected pregnant? What if she had many embryos that were aborted? I'm just wondering.

    cofty posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 21:00:41 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 4614 of 13770
    Joined 12/19/2009

    I find this conversation appalling.

    Why? Its got nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of contraception or abortion. Its about the borg's hypocrisy

    NewChapter posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 21:10:36 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 12485 of 11880
    Joined 1/25/2011

    The bible does not address the practice of abortion, and it was common enough. But some have chosen it as a Christian banner, even though Christ had nothing to say about it either. Some take certain scriptures, add a bunch of thought to them, and conclude that abortion is wrong. Good enough. For them. Others will read the same scriptures and draw a different conclusion. Good enough. For them. Some don't concern themselves with scriptures at all. Good enough. For me.

    But I'd say that if your view of life is even more extreme that the religion that you follow, then you need to take personal responsiblity for that and not get angry at an org that may see it differently. You don't want to take the pill? You define life at the joining of sperm and egg? Then do something about it. It's on YOU. If it is that important to you, why would you ever leave it up to anyone else to do your research?

    We don't understand life the same, we don't all understand it's start the same, and we don't all accept that zygotes have property rights. The bible is silent on the matter. If you wish to go beyond, take responsiblity for that decision. Choice. That's what it's all about.

    The WT is crap, so why worry about their view? They are wrong on all kinds of things. We all walked away because we disagree with them. Most of us walked away and turned left, a few of us turned right. Go where your conscience leads you.

    F FlyingHighNow posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 21:19:02 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 21374 of 21128
    Joined 9/27/2003

    I understand what you are saying, that it's a direct contradiction on the part of the WT, concerning "life."

    turtleturtle posted Wed, 03 Oct 2012 21:54:45 GMT(10/3/2012)

    Post 77 of 209
    Joined 5/28/2012

    First off, YES I am against abortion and am proud of it! Over 50 million abortions have happened since 1973.

      Close

      Confirm ...