Unlike Jill Stanek, I have no problem with contraception per se. I do have a problem with preventing a fertilized ovum (i.e. one that has undergone karyogamy) from implanting, but not with pre-karyogamy birth control (i.e. birth control that prevents the sperm from penetrating the ovum or which prevents the nuclei of the ovum and sperm from merging). [More on this here).
Let's analyze her argument, though:
I base my thinking on several Biblical concepts. The foremost concept is that God is always described in Scripture as the sole procreative decision-maker. To my knowledge, every incident in Scripture describing pregnancy or barrenness gives God complete credit.
If that premise is true, who has the right to say no to God? Who can say they have a better grip on timing than God?
The idea that God is the sole procreative decision-maker is semantically difficult. Yes, pregnancy cannot occur without God allowing it to happen, and God could miraculously cause pregnancy to occur regardless of what precautions a person takes. But this does not mean that as it happens, people have no control over pregnancy occurring.
Put another way, if people have choice about when to have sex, then absent miraculous intervention they are making procreative decisions. Moreover, saying that God was described as the procreative decision maker is exactly that, a description. That is to say, it is a descriptive, not a prescriptive statement (i.e. it explains what did happen, it did not make statements as to what should happen).
Contraception has had some troubling effects on society, I will agree with that. It did enable the sexual revolution, and despite what a lot of people say, that was a bad thing. But that does not mean that contraception has had only evil results or that it itself is evil.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Feministe.
That is all.