Some Questions About Contraception...
As an atheist, I have absolutly no qualms about using contraception as I believe that a child has the right to be wanted and not just a result of mummy and daddy having a drunken fumble.
However, I am genuinely intrigued by the religious attitudes towards it.
Why is the catholic church so opposed to it?
What is the muslim teaching about it?
There is no mention in the bible of contraception, (and they all had large families) so how do protestants account for it?
What about families that CAN'T have children? Are they justified in having fertility treatment?
What about abortion? Is it acceptable in certain cases (rape, incest)?
Not looking to debate anyone here, just very curious as to a very debatable subject and interested in different viewpoints.
wizard66 Wed 26/03/08 22:59
To subscribe to this question you need to
sign in to the AnswerBank or register
if you are not already a member. All you need is a valid email address to register.
|
|
Keyplus ....contraception is not allowed because of the fear of poverty.
That doesn't make sense. Surely it costs more to keep several children than to keep one or two? Lots of children keep you poor.
Or do you mean that Islam wants people to have a lot of children so that they can keep their parents in their old age?
|
|
|
I suspect he is referring to abortion.
"Do not kill your children for fear of poverty for it is We who shall provide sustenance for you as well as for them." (Surah 6: At-Talaqa:2-3)
Although I could be wrong.
|
|
|
Question Author
Theland.....you can have your tv back now.
I'm going back to the good old days and going to bed early with Mrs wiz.
|
|
|
I'll pick it up in the handcart first thing in the morning.
All that, "Benidorm," will not do you any good you know!
|
|
|
It is for abortion as well as contraception. Octavius is bit right. You may get more explanation in the link I gave.
Naomi - if for example you are right saying more kids look after parents when they are old. Then what is wrong with that. If two parents (Mum & Dad) can bring up as many kids as they have, then why can't those kids together look after 2 individuals. Yes of course Islam forbids dumping your parents into old people homes.
Other bit is that I have seen bigger families happier than small families. Because I know personally. Because I am from a country where people do have big families. Your experience is only from what media shows you.
Can you tell me how many brothers and sisters are you and what number is your's.
|
|
|
Keyplus, contraception has a long history in Islam. Early Islam actually developed contraceptive medicine and instructed Europe on it. Avicenna the Muslim physician in his book "The Law" discusses twenty different substances used for birth control. Such Islamic books of medicine were used for centuries in Europe.
The Arab Republic of Egypt published a booklet called "Islam's Attitude Towards Family Planning." After noting that azl (birth control) was permitted, they argue that any method that has the same purpose as azl and does not induce permanent sterility is acceptable for Muslims.
My understanding of the text I quoted above is that when it was written that it is more likely to have referred to the killing of already born children – usually young girls or a defective/deformed child – the custom of which is now (thankfully) forbidden, although most likely continues in some God forsaken places.
There is broad acceptance in the major Islamic schools of law on the permissibility of abortion in the first four months of pregnancy (usually to save the mothers life, or abort a deformed/defective fetus) . However, the study I mentioned above also says: “Some jurists believe in the total permissibility of abortion before life is breathed into the fetus, no matter whether there is a justifiable excuse or not.” Thus effecting the right of abortion on demand, and permitting the embryonic research/application referred to in another Q.
In contrast to the large families you mention, does not the hadith literature also say it is better to have few who are virtuous than many who are not. Once again, human life deserves to thrive, not just to eek out a living. So it is fine if they can afford to raise many children, but according to you, if they can’t they should have them anyway. Isn’t that slightly contradictory?
|
|
|
Keyplus, I can assure you that my experience is not only from what the media shows.
Big families cost more to keep than small families. That's just plain common sense.
The size of my family is irrelevant to this discussion.
|
|
|
Octavius – I agree with you on what you said about early Muslim physicians and the most of other things. As far as contraception is concerned, majority of scholars are against permanent. Temp is allowed. But in all the cases the most important thing is the health risk. To save mother’s life if in case she is too week or any other medical complication. Abortion is only allowed in case of health risk to mother.
Hadith you quoted, I have no knowledge about that. First of all it seems like a prayer that whatever God gives you should be virtuous even one better than few who are not. Because when a child is born no one in this world can tell if he would be a Hero or Villain. You many have only one and he or she may turn your world upside down. Secondly I only believe in (Sahih Ahadiths) agreed upon.
Last bit of your post, Actually it is not contradicting. When you say “Afford”, how do you describe that. Requirements of people differ from country to country. In few countries they only have simple Television and they are happy, and somewhere else they need TV, Satellite, video games, Mobile phone, Broadband, Laptop, PC, May be LCD TV and list is endless. Do you not think more we are going for these things more we desire for. Slowly these things are replacing things in our life which were more dear to us once. We are talking about cancer due to mobile phone, few people are having problems with electronics which influence their behaviour. Kids are committing suicides and becoming violent because of video games.
However if I would decide to have not more than one child because I may not be able to afford above items, then it is wrong. Main things are food, clothing and education. I do not think these things cost you significantly more with extra child.
|
|
|
Naomi - Big families cost more to keep than small families. That's just plain common sense.
That is exactly what someone would say in the world where material things are more important than anything else.
If happiness is sought, then I am in big families people are always happier and that is fact. Ok how many are in your family is irrelevant to the question. But I have no problem in telling you that I am 13th among a family of 14. If my parents had decided about not having more than I would not be here. Let me tell you that I am the most educated in my family, because I had all the support from my brothers & sisters. Now I am helping them and their children and so on. So by the grace of God we are all happy, all can afford basic things and that’s all. I have asked many people how much wealth would be enough to satisfy you, no one could give a figure. The richest person in the world still wants more.
|
|
|
In its simplest form, I meant feed (nowt to do with TVs etc). Is it not true that Islam says that the strength of a nation or family is measured not by numbers or quantities, but rather by quality (the virtuous few rather than the many without)? And that producing sickly, weak, or underdeveloped or uneducated children is not good for the umma, for the society?
Are you of the ‘God will provide the sustenance’ (i.e. not send a child without sending the means to feed it) or of the ‘We are not passive sheep waiting to be fed. We are God's vicegerents on earth gifted with reason and talent. God has shared responsibility for providence with us and has given us the power to be prudent, to see problems and do something sensible about them’ camp.
It seems that if you are of the latter, then you would consciously decide whether you have the means to raise and educate a child, and thus effect some form of family planning, or as some would call it ‘fearing poverty and/or neglect for the child’.
If similarly you believe the former, that God will provide, then would you not be acting against the common good in raising a child you could not sustain, simply relying on divine providence which God may expect you as a being of his creation to provide yoursef?
|
|
|
Keyplus, Naomi - Big families cost more to keep than small families. That's just plain common sense.
That is exactly what someone would say in the world where material things are more important than anything else.
This isn't about material possessions. It's about caring for children as they should be cared for. How many children in this world are hungry and living in abject poverty? That's not merely senseless - it's cruel.
Of course big families cost more to keep than small families, and it's nonsense to say otherwise. Twice the children, twice the amount of food needed to sustain them. And that is simple common sense.
If you know how to feed two children for the price of one, I suggest you contact Oxfam and give them the benefit of your wisdom. You could banish starvation in the third world at one fell swoop.
|
|
|
Octavius – God provides us but God also gives us opportunities, God if without intervention provided to someone I think she was Mary (pbuh). Otherwise of course you have to try to earn the right way. God helps, but human has to make an effort. In Islam even that is known as Jihad (I know majority here only know one kind of Jihad). What you are saying about the strength is in quality and not in quantity, I believe that was referred to as during the wars, because and not about physical strength or weakness but the strength of faith etc. Because even few people are there with strong faith they can be stringer than many, and of course history shows when Muslims had that faith then they out numbered huge armies.
Naomi – Is this what you said.
"This isn't about material possessions. It's about caring for children as they should be cared for. How many children in this world are hungry and living in abject poverty? That's not merely senseless - it's cruel".
Yes as I said earlier to you it is common sense and thinking otherwise is nonsense. All those children who are hungry in this world are not hungry because their parents gave birth to too many. Because among those hungry ones there are many who are the only children of their parents. And why they are hungry? That is because of the unequal distribution of the wealth.
1 – Islam gives you system of Zakat (charity), If all who have more than 85 grams gold worth of wealth give 2.5% of that every year to the ones who do not have that much. Very soon there will be balance in this world and no one will die of hunger. Now if people do not want to do that, then its their problem and children die because of people not God. God has given system and only he did not apply it himself, why? A test of the people.
|
|
|
Cont :
2 – Ok forget about that because I know you do not like religion right or wrong. Only if the food WASTED in America in ONE day can be given to all those countries where children are dieing of hunger, It would be enough for them for months. God stops from doing that. In Islam Allah said that you would be asked if you sleep with full tummy and your neighbor hungry. If I, you and we do not do that then who is at fault.
3 – If there are more people in the family then you get more help than if you have less and that is common sense. If you think otherwise that is nonsense.
Finally where people have big families and they look after each other. There neighbours do not have to complain about a smell only to be found an old man or woman dead for week. Because they either did not have any children because they could not afford children or children left them because they could not afford old parents.
|
|
|
I do not necessarily agree that strength in quality refers to wartime.
If you have 10 children, they may all be weak because you only have the means to feed two of them, so their nourishment is less. If they grow up in relative underdevelopment their quality of life is lessened, they will probably lack the means for education and may ultimately suffer throughout their lives, turning to crime to survive or trying to eke out an honest living somewhere below the poverty line.
In that case they could hardly afford to keep themselves, let alone their own children or their elderly parents. It is an endless cycle that seems to plague much of the underdeveloped world, and in part the UK also.
I doubt those big families would really claim to be happy.
|
|
|
Ok I will take it as your opinion which is obviously different than mine. But I personally have seen bigger families happier. Poverty in under developed countries is due to the unequal distribution of the wealth and duties and taxes imposed upon them by the developed countries during and after industrial revolution.
|
|
|
In the end I would say that I have heard about people killing each other for a bottle of water in America after hurricane and storms. But I have never heard people killing each other in Ethiopia for that.
All killing and power wrestling in those countries is artificially arranged by few countries to sell their weapons to them and to divide them to occupy their resources. That is a different debate.
|
|
|
Perhaps you heard about that one instance in the US because it is such a rare event. In Ethiopa it is probably part of everyday survival and therefore much less news worthy.
Poverty in those countries is caused by a myriad of things (drought etc) but is also caused by over-population, that is a result of lack of family planning initiatives, neglect/denial of preventative (contraception) measures, or widespread abuse and rape and no access to abortive procedures.
It is often their own governments that lock them in this controllable but manipulative cycle. If they can afford to buy the weapons, then one would ask why can't they afford appropriate social and financial infrastructure for the people - because they don't want to.
|
|
|
Keyplus. you pose a senseless argument. Regardless of reasons, if there are less people, there is more food to go around. Simple logistics.
|
|
|
Or less people to produce the food!
|
|
