User:CyberAnth/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prior to the 20th century, contraception was generally condemned by all the major branches of Christianity, including by major reformers like Luther and Calvin. This unified front no longer exists, however. Among Christian denominations today there are a large variety of positions towards contraception.

Contents 1 Roman Catholic Church 1.1 Background 1.2 Current view 1.3 Dissent 2 Protestant Christianity 2.1 Background 2.2 Current views 2.2.1 "Children in abundance" group 2.2.2 "Children in managed abundance" group 2.2.3 "Children in moderation" group 2.2.4 "No children" group 2.2.5 Sterilization reversals 2.3 Ongoing debates 2.3.1 Individual conscience or commandment? 2.3.1.1 “Be fruitful and multiply”—command or blessing? 2.3.1.2 The Sin of Onan—condemnation of contraceptive use? 2.3.2 Which methods are permissible? 2.3.2.1 Natural Family Planning only or "artificial" methods too? 2.3.2.2 Hormonal contraceptives 2.3.3 Protestants Reformers’ views vs. modern Protestant views 2.4 Official statements 3 Anabaptists 3.1 Mennonites 3.2 Amish 3.3 Hutterites 4 References 5 External links 5.1 Roman Catholic 5.2 Protestant 6 Homeschool Anti-Trust lawsuit 7 Politics and philosophy 8 References 9 Bibliography 10 External links 11 Homeschool Anti-Trust lawsuit 12 Politics and philosophy 13 References 14 Bibliography 15 External links

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

See also: Theology of the Body

[edit] Background

Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

The Roman Catholic Church has been morally opposed to contraception for as far back as one can historically trace. The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies that all sex acts must be both unitive and open to the possibility of procreation.^[1] In addition to condemning use of artificial birth control, non-procreative sex acts such as mutual masturbation and oral sex are ruled out as ways to avoid pregnancy.^[2]

[edit] Current view

The current official position of the Catholic Church regarding birth control is expressed very clearly in Pope Pius XI's 1930 encyclical entitled Casti Connubii. It was written in response to the Anglican Communion's Seventh Lambeth Conference, which approved artificial means of contraception in limited circumstances.

“

Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, ... in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, ... proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.[3]

”

In 1951, Pope Pius XII gave two addresses (English translation entitled Moral Questions Affecting Married Life) which reaffirmed the Church's position that chemical and barrier methods were morally impermissible, but suggested the Rhythm Method might be considered in cases of necessity; this is a position some see implicit in Casti Connubii as well.^[4]

In Humanae Vitae, the 1968 encyclical by Pope Paul VI, the Catholic Church's position was further clarified: artificial contraception is considered a grave sin, but methods of natural family planning, including modern forms that are highly effective, are morally permissable in some circumstances. These methods are known as periodic abstinence and are argued to be morally different from positively modifying the couple's fertility. This stance is explained further in a series of lectures given by Pope John Paul II, later entitled Theology of the Body.

“

The Church, nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.[5]

”

In further justification of this position, Pope Paul VI claimed,

“

Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.[5]

”

On July 17, 1994, John Paul II clarified the Church's position during a meditation said prior an angelus recitation.

“

Unfortunately, Catholic thought is often misunderstood ... as if the Church supported an ideology of fertility at all costs, urging married couples to procreate indiscriminately and without thought for the future. But one need only study the pronouncements of the Magisterium to know that this is not so. Truly, in begetting life the spouses fulfill one of the highest dimensions of their calling: they are God's co-workers. Precisely for this reason they must have an extremely responsible attitude. In deciding whether or not to have a child, they must not be motivated by selfishness or carelessness, but by a prudent, conscious generosity that weighs the possibilities and circumstances, and especially gives priority to the welfare of the unborn child. Therefore, when there is a reason not to procreate, this choice is permissible and may even be necessary. However, there remains the duty of carrying it out with criteria and methods that respect the total truth of the marital act in its unitive and procreative dimension, as wisely regulated by nature itself in its biological rhythms. One can comply with them and use them to advantage, but they cannot be "violated" by artificial interference.[6]

”

Couples seeking marriage in the Catholic Church are in most dioceses required to undergo counseling by a Catholic priest. In the past, priests led couples seeking to delay children to the Rhythm Method, while today they are instructed to point new couples toward the more effective methods of Natural Family Planning.^{[citation needed]}

Pope John Paul II argued that contraception is contrary to the interpersonal union that sexual intercourse should cement. The most popular form of this argument asserts that sexual union should involve total mutual bodily self-giving if it is not to be a form of self-deceit.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Dissent

Many Catholics have voiced significant disagreement with the Church's stance on contraception.^[7] The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops issued probably the most heavily dissenting document, the Winnipeg Statement. In it, the bishops argued that many Catholics found it very difficult, if not sometimes impossible, to obey Humanae Vitae.^[8] Additonally, they reasserted—too strongly, conservatives say^[9]—the Catholic principle of primacy of conscience.^[8] Theologians such as Charles Curran have also criticized the stance of Vitae on artificial birth control.^[10]

Catholics for a Free Choice claimed in 1998 that 96% of Catholic women had used contraceptives at some point in their lives and that 72% of Catholics believed that one could be a good Catholic without obeying the Church's teaching on birth control.^[11] According to a September 2005 nationwide poll of 2,242 U.S. adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive, 90% of Catholics supported the use of birth control/contraceptives.^[12]

[edit] Protestant Christianity

Main article: Protestant views on contraception

Unlike Catholics who have a central ecclesiastical authority, the Pope, Protestants do not have (and indeed reject having) such an authority. Protestant views of contraception are thus much more diverse than Catholic views.

[edit] Background

Before the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church viewed the purpose of sexual intercourse as almost exclusively for purposes of procreation. As part of the Reformation, Reformers began to more strongly emphasize the unitive pleasures of marriage.^[13] Still, all major early Protestant Reformers condemned birth control as a contravention of God's procreative purpose for marriage.^[14]

As scientists advanced birth control methods during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the tradition of Protestant rejection of birth control continued alongside growing dissent from Protestant Nonconformists.^[14] As an example of the dissent, the editor of a Nonconformist weekly journal in the United States wrote in 1893,

“

There was a time when any idea of voluntary limitation was regarded by pious people as interfering with Providence. We are beyond that now and have become capable of recognizing that Providence works through the commonsense of individual brains. We limit population just as much by deferring marriage for prudential reasons as by any action that may be taken after it.[15]

”

Protestant denominations were slow to officially go along with such a view, although followers were not as reluctant.

Then in 1930, the Anglican Communion, after years of considerable internal debate, issued the first Protestant statement permitting birth control "when there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence." During the 30 years afterward, Protestant acceptance of birth control steadily increased.^[14] By 2005 acceptance had increased such that a Harris Interactive poll conducted online among 2,242 U.S. adults found that 88% of non-Catholic Christians who identified as either "very religious" or Evangelical supported the use of birth control/contraceptives. ^[12]

[edit] Current views

Author and FamilyLife Today radio host Dennis Rainey suggests four categories as useful in understanding current Protestant views concerning birth control.^[16] Christopher G. Ellison and Patricia Goodson use very similar categories in their 1997 study of Protestant seminarians' attitudes on the matter.^[17]

[edit] "Children in abundance" group

Main article: Quiverfull

The first is the "children in abundance" group. Protestants within this group believe that birth control is a contravention of God’s purpose for marriage and that all children conceived during routine sexual intercourse (without regard to time of the month during the ovulation cycle or other matters) should be welcomed as blessings.^[16] The Quiverfull movement and its authors such as Mary Pride, Rick and Jan Hess, Charles D. Provan, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Rachel Giove Scott, and others, predominate this group. Based upon Bible verses that describe God acting to "open and close the womb" (see Genesis 20:18, 29:31, 30:22; 1 Samuel 1:5-6; Isaiah 66:9), Quiverfull adherents believe that Divine Providence alone should control how many and how often children are conceived and born.

Protestants in this group often connect birth control use with modern feminism, an "anti-child mentality", "worldliness",^{[18] [19] [20] [21]} and abortion because birth control is used for "the same reasons why a woman aborts her child".^[22]

[edit] "Children in managed abundance" group

The second is the "children in managed abundance" group. According to Rainey, Protestants within this group are open to however many children they may conceive during their fertile years yet believe that only Natural Family Planning is acceptable and may use it.^[16] Sam and Bethany Torode advocated for this view in their 2002 book,^[23] although they later accepted barrier contraception such as diaphragms and condoms.^[24] Some Mennonites such as Denny Kenaston also advocate for this position,^[25] as does Presbyterian seminary professor Daniel Doriani.^[26]

[edit] "Children in moderation" group

The third is the "children in moderation" group. In Rainey’s view, these Protestants are very pro-child but feel free to use artificial birth control to prudently plan their families. Those within this group see Divine Providence and Biblically required responsibility as working complimentarily. They thus may feel freedom to use non-"natural" birth control in making personal choices in consultation with God about the number and spacing of children.^[16]

[edit] "No children" group

See also: Childfree

The fourth group is the "no children" group. Rainey sees couples in this group as believing they are within their Biblical rights to define their lives around non-natal concerns.^[16] While not their main emphasis on the subject, Protestant authors such as Samuel Owen and James B. Jordan support this as an acceptable option, but only when a higher ethical principle intervenes to make child bearing imprudent, such as health concerns or a calling to serve orphans or as missionaries in a dangerous location, etc. According to Southern Baptist R. Albert Mohler, Jr., "Couples are not given the option of chosen childlessness in the biblical revelation".^[27] Jordan also maintains that modern birth control methods, as well as Natural Family Planning, are acceptable tools of prudent family planning. Jordan also strongly supports the option for couples to have very large families, while Owen believes that non-use of birth control in any form should be normative.^{[28] [29] [30]} Rainey sees infertile couples as falling into this group apart from their choice in the matter.^[16] Sterilized couples may as well.

[edit] Sterilization reversals

Main article: Sterilization reversal

Stemming from ideas from the Quiverfull movement, some Protestants such as Bill Gothard advocate for couples to undergo sterilization reversal surgery. Brad and Dawn Irons run Blessed Arrows Sterilization Reversal Ministry. The couple advocates for Quiverfull ideas while providing funding, physician referrals, and support to Protestants wishing to undergo reversal surgery.^[31]

[edit] Ongoing debates

There are numerous ongoing debates at core of Protestant differences concerning contraceptives. These include whether contraceptive use or non-use is a matter of individual conscience or binding Biblical commands, what types of birth control are permissible if any, and the amount of weight modern Protestants should give early Protestant Reformers' views on contraception.

[edit] Individual conscience or commandment?

The majority of Protestants, irrespective of denomination, maintain that use or non-use of birth control in its various methods is a matter of conscience for individual Christians before God, and that individual couples should be convinced in their own minds of what is and is not permissible for them particularly (see Romans 14). In this view, God has a personal relationship with individual Christians and, because he has given no explicit Biblical commandment against birth control and uses and has even caused and overseen modern technological advancements (see Daniel 12:4), he guides particular couples' birth control practices in accordance with his particular will for their lives. Conservative evangelical leader John F. MacArthur states the view,

“

Nothing in Scripture prohibits married couples from practicing birth control, either for a limited time to delay childbearing, or permanently when they have borne children and determine that their family is complete ... In our viewpoint, birth control is biblically permissible. At the same time, couples should not practice birth control if it violates their consciences (Romans 14:23)—not because birth control is inherently sinful, but because it is always wrong to violate the conscience. The answer to a wrongly informed conscience is not to violate it, but rather to correct and rightly inform one's conscience with biblical truth.[32]

”

R. Albert Mohler, Jr., the ninth president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky states,

“

Evangelical couples may, at times, choose to use contraceptives in order to plan their families and enjoy the pleasures of the marital bed. The couple must consider all these issues with care, and must be truly open to the gift of children. The moral justification for using contraceptives must be clear in the couple's mind, and fully consistent with the couple's Christian commitments.[28]

”

Additional adherents of this view include Rainey, James Dobson,^[33] Jordan, Mohler, and evangelical ethicists Franklin E. Payne^{[34] [35]} and John and Paul Feinberg.^[36] Although most Protestants adhere to this view, some such as Rainey may nonetheless advocate for one of the categories he describes, depending upon which Christian values they deem most important.

Some Protestants, however, reject the position that contraceptive use is a matter of conscience. Although some Quiverfull adherents accept that birth control use is a matter of individual conscience, other such adherents may argue that the Bible commands their position for all Christians. For example, Charles D. Provan argues,

“

"Be fruitful and multiply" ... is a command of God, indeed the first command to a married couple. Birth control obviously involves disobedience to this command, for birth control attempts to prevent being fruitful and multiplying. Therefore birth control is wrong, because it involves disobedience to the Word of God. Nowhere is this command done away with in the entire Bible; therefore it still remains valid for us today.[19]

”

Jeremy R. Pierce states that such a view

“

Is held by those who are weak of conscience and can't get around an extremely simplistic reading of some biblical statements. For them, it is wrong to use birth control pills and condoms, because it would be doing something that they believe to be wrong. It isn't wrong in principle, however, and those who have thought through the various moral principles that apply will realize that sometimes it's wrong to use such methods and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances.

”

Pierce further notes that when more mature Christians impose one "correct" view of contraceptive use or non-use upon less mature Christians, "It becomes legalism much like that of the Pharisees",^[37] a view that Protestant leaders such as Rainey, Dobson, Jordan, Mohler, Payne, and the Feinbergs maintain as described above.

Quiverfull authors such as Hess and Hess disagree and say the matter is simply one of clear obedience or disobedience to God's words in the Bible.

“

"Behold, children are a gift of the Lord" (Psa. 127:3). Do we really believe that? If children are a gift from God, let’s for the sake of argument ask ourselves what other gift or blessing from God we would reject. Money? Would we reject great wealth if God gave it? Not likely! How about good health? Many would say that a man’s health is his most treasured possession. But children? Even children given by God? "That’s different!" some will plead! All right, is it different? God states right here in no-nonsense language that children are gifts. Do we believe His Word to be true?[20]

”

To such statements, Protestants such as Jordan point out that Christians will, in fact, choose against the blessing of money and great wealth. Jordan also maintains that, while children are indeed blessings, they are only one among a wide range of blessings God offers, and prayerfully choosing foci among them is part of prudent Christian stewardship.^[30] John Piper's Desiring God ministry further explains,

“

Scriptures also say that a wife is a gift from the Lord (Proverbs 18:22), but that doesn't mean that it is wrong to stay single (1 Corinthians 7:8). Just because something is a gift from the Lord does not mean that it is wrong to be a steward of when or whether you will come into possession of it. It is wrong to reason that since A is good and a gift from the Lord, then we must pursue as much of A as possible. God has made this a world in which tradeoffs have to be made and we cannot do everything to the fullest extent. For kingdom purposes, it might be wise not to get married. And for kingdom purposes, it might be wise to regulate the size of one's family and to regulate when the new additions to the family will likely arrive. As Wayne Grudem has said, "it is okay to place less emphasis on some good activities in order to focus on other good activities."[38]

”

[edit] “Be fruitful and multiply”—command or blessing?

Protestants, including Quiverfull adherents, also disagree over whether the Biblical statement "be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis 1:28 and 9:7 is a command or simply a blessing God spoke over its recipients. Mary Pride and Charles E. Provan see it as a binding command upon married Christians, while Dobson, MacArthur, Jordan, and Raymond C. Van Leeuwen do not see the see the statement as prohibiting family planning by contraceptive use.^[39]

[edit] The Sin of Onan—condemnation of contraceptive use?

As part of this debate, Protestants (as well as some Catholics) disagree over the Sin of Onan as found in the Bible verses of Genesis 38:1-10. Protestants within the "children in abundance" group often see Onan's act of coitus interruptus as condemning contraceptive use, while most see Onan's real sin as failure to fulfill the terms of his Levirate marriage (Yibbum).^[30]

[edit] Which methods are permissible?

Protestants who accept that birth control is permissible may disagree over which methods are impermissible.

[edit] Natural Family Planning only or "artificial" methods too?

In Sam and Bethany Torode's 2002 book, Open Embrace: A Protestant Couple Rethinks Contraception, the young couple argued that only Natural Family Planning was permissible, citing their views borrowed from Catholicism including the Theology of the Body.^[23] The couple later accepted barrier methods and stated,

“

Strict NFP reaches a point where it is more harmful for a marriage than good. We think that Jesus' words in Luke 11:46 apply: "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry." How is it that spouses are saying "yes" to the gift of each other when they end up abstaining for much of their married lives? ... We also see honest congruity with the language of the body by saying "no" to conception with our bodies (via barrier methods or sensual massage) when our minds and hearts are also saying "no" to conception. We don’t believe this angers God, nor that it leads to the slippery slope of relativism or divorce. We strongly disagree with the idea that this is a mortal sin.[24]

”

John Piper's Desiring God ministry states of NFP,

“

Some conclude that "natural family planning" is acceptable but "artificial" means are not. But this seems to overlook something significant: in both cases, you are still seeking to regulate when you have children. And so if one concludes that it is wrong to seek to regulate the timing and size of a family, then it would have to be concluded that natural family planning is just as wrong as "artificial" means. But if one concludes that it is appropriate to steward the timing and size of one's family, then what makes "artificial" means wrong but natural family planning right? Surely it is not because God is "more free" to overrule our plans with natural family planning! Perhaps some have concluded that artificial forms are wrong because they allow one more fully to separate intercourse from the possibility of procreation. But if it is wrong to have intercourse without a significant possibility of procreation, then it would also be wrong to have intercourse during pregnancy or after a woman is past her childbearing years. There is no reason to conclude that natural family planning is appropriate but that "artificial" means are not.[38]

”

[edit] Hormonal contraceptives

Based upon a view that life begins at conception, Protestant author Randy Alcorn rejects all forms of hormonal contraceptives, while James Dobson and obstetrician and minister William R. Cutrer reject only certain forms of them. Dobson and Cutrer view progesterone-only birth control pills as highly problematic, since they may be potentially abortive contraceptives because of their possible slight secondary action of preventing a fertilized embryo from implanting within the uterine wall.^{[33] [40] [41]} Dobson's Focus on the Family states,

“

Dr. Dobson would emphasize as foundational his strict concurrence with the biblical teaching that every child is a blessing from God ... While affirming that human life begins with fertilization (the union of sperm and egg), his interpretation of Scripture leads him to believe that the prevention of fertilization is not morally wrong. However, he would oppose any method of birth control that acts after fertilization and terminates a conceived human life by preventing its implantation in the womb ... there is enough of a possibility for an abortifacient effect [with the progesterine-only pill], however remote, to warrant informing women about it?[33]

”

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, however, argues that any abortive action of progesterone-only birth control pills and Norplant is only theoretical, since no emperical evidence exists to prove any abortive action. The organization states,

“

Is it appropriate to implicate a medication as an abortive agent without the data to support such a claim? To do so creates needless hostility and division among physicians and patients who genuinely respect life from the moment of conception. Where do we draw the line in informed consent for responsible disclosure of known medical risks vs. a theoretical risk which is not substantiated by current scientific knowledge? Is it accurate to implicate all hormonal contraceptive methods as one regarding their method of action, rather than evaluating each one individually?[42]

”

[edit] Protestants Reformers’ views vs. modern Protestant views

Protestants such as Pride, Provan, Hess and Hess, and Scott, argue that Protestants should not have moved away from traditional Protestant views of contraception such as given by Martin Luther and John Calvin. Such modern authors contrast the views of early Reformers who rejected contraception with modern Christians who accept it, and point to primarly feminist, secular, or Satanic influences as causative to the change.^{[18] [19] [20] [21]}

Provan in his The Bible and Birth Control extensively quotes early Protestant views of birth control, which Provan uses to conclude,

“

If Martin Luther were alive today, would he not disapprove of many Christians who view children as a bad thing, and so practice birth control to prevent God from sending more blessings to them? ... Truly Scriptural principles do not change at all: therefore Christians should willingly receive the blessings which God has for us, and not try to prevent them.[19]

”

Protestant scholars such as Jordan, however, maintain that Provan's view has the effect of adding a law to the Bible that it does not contain. Jordan states,

“

Jesus repeatedly denounced the Pharisees for their additions to the Law of God. Thus, we must be extremely careful about what laws we lay down for people. Does the Bible clearly state that contraception is sinful, or that people are obligated to have as many children as possible? If the Bible does not say these things, we need to fear God and be frightened of adding to His Word.[30]

”

Jordan also argues that the views of early Protestant Reformers on contraception are unreliable because they were heavily influenced by not just the Bible but Neo-Platonic mysticism (otherworldliness) and Aristolean teleologism (measuring all things only by their result), philosophies they inherited from their Catholic predecessors such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo. Bart Garrett describes it, "They operated in a time and context that unhealthily looked at sex as a base, physical pleasure that carried with it spiritual detriments."^[43]

Jordan further cites the Reformers' unreliability from their rejection of Song of Solomon as a description of passionate sexual expression within marriage. He also cites technophobia among Protestants, as evident by their rejection of things ranging from buttons to airplanes ("if God meant for man to fly he would have given him wings"). As well, Jordan points to the Reformers' own mantra, "reformed and always reforming" (ecclesia reformata est semper reformanda), as evidence that Protestants should not cystalize their position on the matter at some point in the past, and says that rejecting contraceptives based upon their correlative rise alongside feminism exhibits the genetic fallacy.^[30]

[edit] Official statements

Some Protestant denominations and movements have made official statements about modern contraceptives. For examaple, the Church of England has stated it "does not regard contraception as a sin or a contravention of God's purpose".^[44]

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has stated,

“

When a woman and man join their bodies sexually, both should be prepared to provide for a child, should conception occur. When that is not their intention, the responsible use of safe, effective contraceptives is expected of the male and the female. Respect and sensitivity should also be shown toward couples who do not feel called to conceive and/or rear children, or who are unable to do so.[45]

”

Along with these general acceptances, many Protestant movements view contraception use outside of marriage as encouragement to promiscuity. For example, Focus on the Family states,

“

Sex is a powerful drive, and for most of human history it was firmly linked to marriage and childbearing. Only relatively recently has the act of sex commonly been divorced from marriage and procreation. Modern contraceptive inventions have given many an exaggerated sense of safety and prompted more people than ever before to move sexual expression outside the marriage boundary.[46]

”

Other major Lutheran and Presbyterian associations, as well as other Protestant groups in general, may take other positions. For example, in 1989 the Lutheran Churches of the Reformation adopted a statement consistent with Quiverfull teachings.^[47]

[edit] Anabaptists

[edit] Mennonites

The Mennonite Church USA, the General Conference Mennonite Church, and the Conservative Mennonite Conference have adopted statements indicating approval of modern methods of contraception. For example, while also teaching and encouraging love and acceptance of children, the Conservative Mennonite Conference maintains, "The prevention of pregnancy when feasible by birth control with pre-fertilization methods is acceptable."^[48] A study published in 1975 found that only 11% of Mennonites believed use of birth control was "always wrong".^[49] Old Colony Mennonites, like the Amish, do not officially allow birth control practices.

[edit] Amish

All types of birth control, including forms of natural family planning such as the Rhythm Method, are forbidden in Old Order Amish communities.^{[50] [49]} However, especially in recent years, more Amish women have begun using contraception. This trend is more pronounced in communities where few of the men earn their living through farming.^[51]

[edit] Hutterites

The Hutterite Brethren use contraception only if it is recommended by a physician.^[52]

[edit] References

[edit] External links

Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion.

[edit] Roman Catholic

"God, Sex, & Babies: What the Church Really Teaches about Responsible Parenthood" by Christopher West

[edit] Protestant

• "A Biblical Approach To Family Planning" by Dennis Rainey - 8 part series from FamilyLife Today radio broadcast. Audio and transcripts available at link.
• "Birth Control & God's Will" by Gregory Koukl
• "Christians and Contraception: Convenience or Kingdom Thinking?" by Bart Garrett
• "Contraception: the Tragic Deception" by Royce Dunn
• "Does the Bible permit birth control?" by John Piper
• "Responsible Family Planning" by Rich Vincent
• "The Bible and Family Planning" by James B. Jordan - Article begins on page 4 of source

v • d • e Birth control Comparison: Comparison of birth control methods Behavioral: Avoiding vaginal intercourse: Anal sex, Oral sex, Non-penetrative sex, Masturbation, Abstinence Including vaginal intercourse: Fertility awareness, Rhythm Method, Withdrawal, Breastfeeding infertility Barrier: Condom, Female condom, Diaphragm, Cervical cap, Lea's Shield Spermicide: Contraceptive sponge Hormonal: Combined: Combined oral contraceptive pill ('the Pill'), Contraceptive patch, NuvaRing, Combined injectable contraceptive Progestogen only: Progestogen only pill ('minipill'), Depo-Provera, Norplant/Jadelle, Implanon Anti-estrogen: Ormeloxifene (a.k.a. Centchroman) Intra-uterine: IUD (copper or progestogen), IUS (progestogen) Post-intercourse: Contraception: Emergency contraception (pills or copper IUD) Abortion: Surgical abortion, Medical abortion (RU-486/abortion pill) Sterilization: Male: Vasectomy Female: Tubal ligation, Essure

---

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff (birth year - ) is the former editor of Gentle Spirit magazine,^[1] a homeschooling and homesteading magazine, published between 1989 and 2001, that reached a readership of approximately 35,000 before being forced from the marketplace in a well-publicized anti-trust lawsuit, Seelhoff v. Welch. Seelhoff's high profile in Christian homeschooling, and the details of the case which was decided in Seelhoff's favor, was closely watched by the U.S. homeschooling movement as a battle for its control between conservative Christian and independent homeschoolers.^[2][3]. A former ardent Quiverfull proponent and birth-mother of eleven children, she has since divorced her husband and become an article writer, and under the pseudonym "Heart" a highly read blogger, devoted to radical feminist causes.^{[4] [5] [6]}.

[edit] Homeschool Anti-Trust lawsuit

In 1997, Seelhoff filed an antitrust lawsuit against eight conservative Christian individuals and organizations, including competing homeschooling guru Mary Pride, represented with the assistance of the Home School Legal Defense Association. The case went to trial in September 1998 and a unanimous jury found in Seelhoff's favor, awarding her in excess of $1 million (Pride herself settled out-of court). The lawsuit has come to be known in the homeschooling community as the "Homeschooling's Anti-Trust Case."^[7]

[edit] Politics and philosophy

In 2001 Seelhoff created a radical feminist^[8] website and began writing and publishing feminist articles. In 2006 Seelhoff served as guest editor at the invitation of the collective of the feminist newsjournal Off Our Backs and has since written additional articles for Off Our Backs and other publications.^[9]

[edit] References

[edit] Bibliography

• A Homeschoolers' History of Homeschooling
• Living Simply -- Rethinking the Good Life (What is Living Simply?)
• Confronting the Religious Right
• Women in the Military: The Rape of the Hadji Girl
• Join Us! The Motherhood Revolution
• Motherhood as Revolution: Raising Bi-Racial Children
• Radical Feminism and the Politics of Pregnancy and Birth

[edit] External links

• Gentle Spirit website
• Women's Space/The Margins website
• Women's Space blog
• Coalition of Independent Homeschoolers website

--- Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff (also known as Heart) is a radical feminist blogger and writer, and former editor of the homeschooling and homesteading magazine Gentle Spirit.

[edit] Homeschool Anti-Trust lawsuit

In 1997, Seelhoff filed an antitrust lawsuit against eight conservative Christian individuals and organizations, including competing homeschooling guru Mary Pride, represented with the assistance of the Home School Legal Defense Association. The case went to trial in September 1998 and a unanimous jury found in Seelhoff's favor, awarding her in excess of $1 million (Pride herself settled out-of court). The lawsuit has come to be known in the homeschooling community as the "Homeschooling's Anti-Trust Case."^[1][2][3][4]

[edit] Politics and philosophy

In 2001 Seelhoff created a radical feminist^[5] website and began writing and publishing feminist articles. In 2006 Seelhoff served as guest editor at the invitation of the collective of the feminist newsjournal Off Our Backs and has since written additional articles for Off Our Backs and other publications.^[6]

[edit] References

[edit] Bibliography

• A Homeschoolers' History of Homeschooling
• Living Simply -- Rethinking the Good Life (What is Living Simply?)
• Confronting the Religious Right
• Women in the Military: The Rape of the Hadji Girl
• Join Us! The Motherhood Revolution
• Motherhood as Revolution: Raising Bi-Racial Children
• Radical Feminism and the Politics of Pregnancy and Birth

[edit] External links

• Gentle Spirit website
• Women's Space/The Margins website
• Women's Space blog
• Coalition of Independent Homeschoolers website