Is it a sin to use birth control methods for something other than birth control?

[Estil]

Yeah I was taught that whole "wasting semen is a sin" thing too...and it really messed me up big time...to the extent that I wished that I didn't have a penis or wasn't born male (yes I was told that this was a boy's problem) or that eh, you know what was an evil dirty thing. And of course back then there was no Internet or much else to let me know any different and that is one of the main reasons I'm not able to even have a normal proper sexual relationship with even my own wife...because I was led to believe that sexual sorts of things and desires was dirty and evil and let you to burn in hell. That I think is even more dangerous than singling out LGBT things as if it's one of the mother lodes of sin.

[Racket_Man]

1. There's a line of thought in some denominations (I don't know how prevalent this is in Catholicism) that using birth control subverts the will of God. In other words, if you're using something artificial to keep from getting pregnant, that may not be the will of God, and therefore it's a sin.

I have a BIG problem with the above statement. Not because MJR posted it but in general. the problem is "God's Will". What exactly is God's Will??? How do we know what God's Will IS??. Supposedly God "informed" or "divinely inspired" some humans to put down some words that was allegedly His (or Her) thoughts on human things like rules of conduct and behavior. Unless someone has a direct line from their brain to God's ( His or Her) Mind NO one really knows.

There have been SOOOOOO many people who "claim" they KNOW EXACTLY what God's Will is (and most have claimed very diverse and DIFFERENT meanings to said Will). Even the "holiest" men and founders of major religions have been nit-picked and interperated in SOOOOO many different ways.

"WELLL this is what I "think" God meant and that is my story and I am sticking to it". ad nausium through out history.

[Talon]

While I have always identified as pro-life, and I hope this doesn't make me sound like a traitor, but I am all for things like birth control/contraceptives/condoms...

Better treason than wishful thinking I say.
Unwanted pregnancies are a fact of life, and they're going to happen for all kinds of reasons. Someone who advocates a "pro-life" position without favouring birth control/contraceptives/sex-ed/morning-after pill is woefully fooling themselves. At the expense of other people.

Yeah I was taught that whole "wasting semen is a sin"

Ah the "handjobs are genocide" school of thought? Don't even want to think about what that means for blowjobs

[TheHuckster]

The whole "waste of semen" thing is bogus. The same semen doesn't just stay with you forever until you ejaculate. You are repeatedly generating and rejecting semen whether you ejaculate or not... not to mention IIRC ejaculation often occurs unvoluntarily every few weeks if you haven't had any action.

[s_stabeler]

it's worth noting that the more...extreme definitions of what constitutes a sin often coincide with religions that preach that unless you repent for your sins by doing exactly what they tell you to, you'll burn in hell.

it's an issue that really needs it's own thread, but I always figured the more extreme sects had misunderstood something fundamental- specifically, that God is not an elitist jerk, saying that everyone who isn't absolutely perfect can't get into heaven. He wants as many people as possible to make it into Heaven, and ideally, everyone would.It's why it's my personal belief that if you truly repent of your sins- that is, acknowledge what you did was wrong, and wish you could go back and reverse it- then it is never too late to repent.(on the other hand, it must be true repentance- merely wanting to dodge Hell is not enough. So in the classic case of a genocidal dictator repenting on their deathbed, if they are just trying to get away with their sins, they go to hell. If it was an epiphany about their actions in life, they may be forgiven their sins, extreme as they were.(and yes, since God is omniscient-All-Knowing- He can tell the difference)

it's also why I go by the principle that it's how you act that matters, not what ceremonies you go through.(so, to use an extreme example, if you attend Church regularly, but then go off hunting orphans for sport, you're going to Hell regardless of how pious you apparently are. On the other extreme, even Atheists can get into heaven, IMHO- provided they have been behaving in a reasonably moral way. (that is, if an Atheiist behaves no more immorally than the average person let into heaven, let them in.(after all, if God does exist, I doubt the Atheiist would be one for long postmortem. As such, I see it that God sees Atheists as amusing, rather than an enemy as such.)

[Estil]

Exactly, I could just "go through the motions" and go to church every Sunday/Saturday whatever and whatnot, but if I don't really feel it "inside", then it's not real. Religion or not, I'm definitely not one of those "fake it till you make it" types. :P

[HYHYBT]

The whole "waste of semen" thing is bogus. The same semen doesn't just stay with you forever until you ejaculate. You are repeatedly generating and rejecting semen whether you ejaculate or not... not to mention IIRC ejaculation often occurs unvoluntarily every few weeks if you haven't had any action.

This brings back a test question I missed (and the only one I remember) from 9th grade sex education. The course material had a single sentence like "wet dreams or masturbation is normal for all boys," and that was the full extent of that point's coverage. The TEST gave "wet dreams are normal for all boys" as a true-or-false question. Seemed like a significant difference to me, so I put false and was marked wrong.

[s_stabeler]

um, HYHYBT, they marked that correctly. what answering "wet reams are normal for all boys" with false is answering is "wet dreams are not normal for all boys" not "both wet dreams and masturbation are normal for all boys"

I agree that the course material seems somewhat sparse though,

[TheHuckster]

This brings back a test question I missed (and the only one I remember) from 9th grade sex education. The course material had a single sentence like "wet dreams or masturbation is normal for all boys," and that was the full extent of that point's coverage. The TEST gave "wet dreams are normal for all boys" as a true-or-false question. Seemed like a significant difference to me, so I put false and was marked wrong.

Not sure how that's a significant difference. If they give you a subset of things that are normal for boys, and you mark that 'false' then yeah that's wrong. The test asked "are wet dreams normal for all boys?" and you said no. That's a wrong answer provided the material you were given, which said it was true. Just because they didn't include another thing that's normal doesn't make it false.

[HYHYBT]

You would be right, if it had said "and." But "or" means normal includes the absence of either so long as the other is present.

"A OR B is normal for all" includes three things:

1) Some will have A without B, and that is normal;
2) Some will have B without A, and that is normal; and
3) Some may have both, and that is normal.

"A is normal for all" logically excludes #2 from normality. So one option the material included within normality is excluded as presented on the test. The problem is simultaneously removing a possibility while keeping the word "all."

Take a different statement of the same form: "All our employees either drive or walk to work." Assuming that is true, it does not follow that you can remove a couple of words and say "all our employees walk to work" and have it remain true.

[TheHuckster]

That's true. It's a poorly worded statement/question. Even if they had meant what you thought they meant, I could see other people interpreting the way s_stabeler and I did and would have been similarly upset. If this were a logic test, it's fine to ask questions that way, but this is supposed to be a test about understanding adolescent behavior, not trying to parse what is meant by "all" and "or" in a strict fashion.

[Cia]

The whole "waste of semen" thing is bogus. The same semen doesn't just stay with you forever until you ejaculate. You are repeatedly generating and rejecting semen whether you ejaculate or not... not to mention IIRC ejaculation often occurs unvoluntarily every few weeks if you haven't had any action.

Yes it is but you have to remember that way back when they believed that men only had so much semen. Along with it was the woman who decided what sex the baby was, so it's her fault if you didn't have a son.


To answer the OP - No, it isn't a sin. The only people who will think it is a sin are the ones who have their noses stuck in places they shouldn't be.

[Gravekeeper]

Those who need to judge others to feel better about themselves will do so regardless of the topic. The concept of "sin" was devised by people and what is and is not one is likewise devised by people. You can take any given topic and there's someone on the planet who thinks its a sin and someone one the planet who doesn't.

This isn't a question for us, or your Church or some old white dudes with dusty books. Its a question for you and your relationship with whatever it is you believe in. Do you really believe that an all knowing, all loving entity that created life and the universe would be upset with you for doing something to alleviate your own pain? Pain which you experience through no fault of your own?

Personally, if such a being exists I don't see how it can be so wise and so compassionate but also get bent out of shape about whats going on in a single woman's vagina. To the point of allowing her to suffer because he's a compulsive micromanager. -.-

God is suppose to be better than all of us yet people forever claim its his "will" for him to behave just like our ugliest selves.

[CrystalSkull]

What Gravekeeper said about those who need to judge others to feel better about themselves will do so regardless of the topic is right on. I was a Southern Baptist until they started preaching that a married couple without children are sinning, because God said to be fruitful and multiply. I guess they never considered that there are infertile couples or couples who choose not to have children for good, valid reasons. Hub and I chose not to have children because we were older when we got married, which, IMO, is no one's business but ours. Not the church's business, not our parents' business, but ours and ours alone. As far as taking birth control drugs to lessen pain and/or bleeding, it's also no one's business but the OP and her doctor's.

[HYHYBT]

Is that an official Southern Baptist position now, or just one that was preached in the church you went to or something along those lines?