I haven't had time to read this thread until today. Birth control is such a controversial subject, isn't it.
In an ideal world, I can see no honest need for the practice. Chemical birth control (almost without exception) is abortifacient when it doesn't prevent fertilization (which with all the pills is about 25% of the time). Spermicide in the US isn't even honestly spermicidal, it simply makes the vaginal mucus so thick that sperm can't travel. IUDs with or without hormones, etc., have serious side effects to them. Implants (like Norplant and its imitators) are/were carcinogenic. I.E., they all have serious risks and side effects. Barrier methods are not perfect, either, but at least they don't have serious health side effects. Human bodies were designed to be healthier with sex and lots of it. Women's moods have been shown to stabilize in the presence of prostaglandins from seminal fluids (women don't have prostate glands, and thus don't produce these mood-enhancing chemicals), but get depressed more easily without them. We are now learning that every pregnancy puts stem-cells from the baby into the mother and that these stem-cells continue to reproduce and repair mom's damaged body parts for the remainder of her life. Breast feeding and pregnancy are HUGE contributors to not getting breast cancer. In short, the benefits to having kids are numerous and desirable.
But, we don't live in that ideal world. Ectopic pregnancy will kill the baby and will usually kill the mother if it doesn't happen in the abdominal wall. Most happen in the fallopian tubes. Many different health conditions make pregnancy dangerous or fatal. My wife is in end stage renal failure. Focal Segmental Glomerulo-sclerosis has destroyed the one kidney she has. She does dialysis every night while she sleeps, via a dialysate fluid placed in her peritoneal sack. Pregnancy would be very dangerous and she would be hsopitalized from at least month three until the end. She would have to change to hemodialysis, which was extremely hard on her body chemistry, and probably life shortening if she had stayed on that method. If both parents had the regressive gene for cystic fibrosis, their children would be in significant danger of this disease that kills most by 35-40 years old. Many conditions could be listed, I am certain. Age itself can be an issue. Older women can have significant complications in pregnancy. Adoption, fostering, and limiting pregnancy opportunities should be considered very seriously in such situations. However, each family must take their unique circumstances, giftings, and abilities into account. Prayer, prayer, prayer! It's not optional.
Finances are another issue. Right now, there is no way I could support another mouth to feed, much less other necessities for another person in our home, no matter their age. We're honestly just that tight. It won't last forever, but it's a serious issue for the moment. I could make do with very little and still add family members, but not at present.
Ordinarily, I would not recommend birth control. But I am not in a place to determine whether or not it is appropriate for anyone else. Were I to have a second wife, I would probably want more children, but I would have to take a lot into consideration.
What I am surprised not to see is a discussion of Natural Family Planning. It has been shown to as effective as the best chemical birth control methods when done correctly and leaves everyone open to life. It also does no damage to the woman's body the way almost all chemical birth control does.
Here is an introduction for those who aren't familiar:
http://americanpregnancy.org/preventing ... ssNFP.html
I guess there are always those who will skim through BibFam and pick out the "he shouldn't have's" or "she shouldn't have's" and put them into their bag of "now I can's," whatever the case may be. 
:? :lol: