R
Rence
Guest
The thing is, weighing the risks for potential harm against the risk for getting pregnant, it seems clear most people choose to not risk pregnancy…
- Status
R
Rence
Guest
Actually, that’s not so. Even if you can prove the effectiveness or high percentage of success when using NFP to not get pregnant (which, so far, I’ve not seen concrete proof), if the method is too difficult or too much of a burden to use, making people drop out or ‘decide to do it anyway and hope for the best’, that affects the efficacy. Not only do people want a method that works, but a tool they can use easily (and clearly, there is a problem with it for over half the people who responded on the thread polling NFP users on this forum)/
Ok, but we’re talking about from a secular perspective. Most people don’t agree that sexual self control is required for married people, and most people aren’t in favor of self control for unmarried people. In fact, they think it’s silly to think that way. Otherwise, sex wouldn’t be so casual, and the majority wouldn’t be using NFP.
D
Debora123
Guest
Just because a married couple postpones pregnancy by using a condom instead of NFP doesn’t mean they don’t practice sexual temperance.Temperance seems to be a lost virtue. It’s just my opinion that we could use a little more of it, instead of being disposed to acting on whims and separating the natural consequence of sex from the action. We want all the fun and none of the responsibility.
Sometimes the other spouse is on duty overseas or off on long business trips… sometimes one of them is ill in the hospital, or has a headache one night… sometimes marriages go through rough patches and sex takes a back seat…
A spouse must still practice sexual temperance during these times and not masturbate, look at porn, go off and have sex with someone else, or put pressure on the other spouse.
My husband and I use condoms during our fertile times, and trust me, we have plenty of sexual temperance. We dated for 4 years and remained virgins until we married. He is a pilot and he is often gone away on overnight trips for days at a time. Regardless of all this, we remain loyal to each other and to ourselves. It doesn’t take using NFP to maintain temperance.
And also, I see nothing wrong with having sex “on a whim” with your own husband. Spontaneity is fun and passionate. I think a lot of marriages would do well to use a little more of that.
Now as for a secular argument for ABC… well, hormonal birth control has many negative side effects, but most importantly it can kill a newly conceived baby before it has a chance to implant. I find that immoral whether you believe in God or not.
As for condoms and other barrier methods - I see absolutely nothing immoral about them. Neither secularly nor religiously.
S
silentstar
Guest
I don’t see how this analogy works. binging and purging damages your body such as your esophagus and teeth. Also the experience of throwing up is repulsive to most people, which is one of the things that makes the flu so unpleasant. And I don’t agree it’s enough to say ‘well this analogy shows there is a right way and a wrong way to do things.’ The analogy needs to work. I don’t see how it works.
How can the loving experience of a married couple having sex be compared to chronic purging which involves nausea and damage to the esophagus, gums, fingers (from putting them down your throat), electrolyte balance, and other aspects of the body? I don’t see it.
S
silentstar
Guest
The experience of my parents runs directly counter to this. When they did not use ABC she had 7 dangerous pregnancies, the last one she had toxic shock, was in the hospital for 2 weeks and almost died. After that she and my father were read the riot act by doctors and used ABC (she was 37). She never got pregnant again.
S
silentstar
Guest
There are people with dyslexia, or difficulty staying organized, who simply cannot handle the daily record-keeping and paperwork involved. I have heard it claimed that the record keeping process becomes easy but there is a learning curve. I used to work in records management - not everyone can deal with paperwork or daily records, not even very basic records like NFP. Not everyone is capable of learning the process, even if the records are kept electronically.I think the key part is “involves discipline that people don’t want to have”.
It seems that even any arguments against birth control that don’t involve God are hard to present in a positive way when people are used to doing what they want when they want to. Anyone can talk about the benefits of only having sex within marriage and being prepared and willing to accept a pregnancy until they’re blue in the face, but when everyone is used to instant gratification, I guess it doesn’t do much good.
People want what is easy and convenient- I understand that. Temperance seems to be a lost virtue. It’s just my opinion that we could use a little more of it, instead of being disposed to acting on whims and separating the natural consequence of sex from the action. We want all the fun and none of the responsibility.
There is a field called “health literacy” - one appalling thing I found out is that many people’s ability to comprehend very very basic information is at a really low level, even if they are native speakers of English, but it can be worse if they are not. There are people who have difficulty understanding how to get a prescription filled and take daily medication - so many people don’t understand the health reasons for finishing a course of antibiotics once they start feeling better, for example.
I think people at CAF tend to be very good readers/processors of information (although people often don’t agree - b/c that’s the type person who tends to easily read material online. However there are other equally bright people who have low literacy or have struggled but are not good readers and even something like reading a thermometer every day is not easy.
A
Abu
Guest
An oxymoron. Reason based on the cause and effect in economics discovered and developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics and following prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance brought the free enterprise system which really did raise untold millions in the West from poverty, and then spread to the world.
So, the secular perspective is gravely deficient and that’s why the “arguments” need to bring that perspective down to earth to face reality.
S
samiam1611
Guest
The bolded part is something I read on this site a lot, people are like, the pill is abortive, IUDs are abortive etc. I have a question about that. (a possible flaw in your logic though I am open to correction.)Now as for a secular argument for ABC… well, hormonal birth control has many negative side effects, but most importantly it can kill a newly conceived baby before it has a chance to implant. I find that immoral whether you believe in God or not.
As for condoms and other barrier methods - I see absolutely nothing immoral about them. Neither secularly nor religiously.
In medical terms, they say pregnancy begins at implantation though obviously that is debatable. That is the concensus though is all I’m saying, which is why the hormonal birth control and IUDs are not technically abortive (again, I am just pointing out that this is the secular/scientific concensus, I do understand that Catholics see it beginning at conception.)
Here’s the problem that I see with the argument that hormonal birth control is abortive and that’s why it’s less moral than barrier methods:
I assume you all know that hormonal birth control is licit when used for medical purposes; and you may or may not know that the morning after pill is licit if a woman has been raped. You also know I’m sure, that the Church does not approve of abortion, even for rape victims or therapeutic abortion where the mother’s life is at risk.
So…why would the Church approve of HBC and morning after pill if it caused abortions?
Answer: because those things do not cause abortion. Therefore, they are no less moral than barrier methods.
This is just an inconsistency I have noted but have not voiced it before so am open to correction.
p.s. sources available upon request but I don’t feel like it right now
J
josephback
Guest
True. Western man in general is in bad shape. Too much devotion to rationalism is another reason.
J
josephback
Guest
I made this very point in my second post.
If you read elsewhere I mentioned “Western culture” as soon surviving best in the areas we transplanted it. That means post colonial Africa, Asia, etc. Its not so much about whether your neighbor is black or German as opposed to white(implied definition of Western?), than it is about whether they share our Christian cultural values. Every culture needs a center to survive. Historically for Christianity that was Europe. The natives are becoming more and more hostile to it. In that way I guess immigration might become a catalyst for re-evangelization of Europe. And that would be a good thing.
We’ve been dying for a while. I really don’t want to see Europe or America become Muslim. The current vacuum will sooner or later get filled. But by what? Actually if the immigrants are converted, it could become the catalyst for a global age of faith. May it be so!Condoms might prevent disease, but they raise issues outside the pro-life one. If monogamy is truly practiced and followed, would disease proliferate? That’s a human nature issue I guess.
J
josephback
Guest
I was unaware of the cultural issues. Thanks for educating me. Mine was a hypothetical argument in this regard.Actually, because of cultural issues and the population control, being in the military isn’t desired. If the male dies, the parents might be too old to attempt to have another child. So, it can lead to less aggression.
J
josephback
Guest
Indeed I did not. For a good economy its a bad thing.Not a bad attempt. Of course you did not show that the decreasing population is a bad thing.
J
josephback
Guest
Good critique. Maybe we should change from capitalism.
D
Debora123
Guest
I suppose you’re right… technically, medically, etc, PREGNANCY starts when the fertilized egg implants. But LIFE begins at conception. When sperm and egg meet, a brand new set of DNA is created that is unique to that individual and exists no where else in the world. That right there is a new person… a new human being, whether it is implanted or not.The bolded part is something I read on this site a lot, people are like, the pill is abortive, IUDs are abortive etc. I have a question about that. (a possible flaw in your logic though I am open to correction.)
In medical terms, they say pregnancy begins at implantation though obviously that is debatable. That is the concensus though is all I’m saying, which is why the hormonal birth control and IUDs are not technically abortive (again, I am just pointing out that this is the secular/scientific concensus, I do understand that Catholics see it beginning at conception.)
Here’s the problem that I see with the argument that hormonal birth control is abortive and that’s why it’s less moral than barrier methods:
I assume you all know that hormonal birth control is licit when used for medical purposes; and you may or may not know that the morning after pill is licit if a woman has been raped. You also know I’m sure, that the Church does not approve of abortion, even for rape victims or therapeutic abortion where the mother’s life is at risk.
So…why would the Church approve of HBC and morning after pill if it caused abortions?
Answer: because those things do not cause abortion. Therefore, they are no less moral than barrier methods.
This is just an inconsistency I have noted but have not voiced it before so am open to correction.
p.s. sources available upon request but I don’t feel like it right now
Now to answer your question, you’re right, it is licit for women to be on the pill for medical purposes and she is not required to abstain during that time. This is because in this case, the woman wouldn’t be taking the pill to contracept, she would be doing it for health reasons bc she has no other choice. You can read a little more about it here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618
As for the morning after pill, it can be used on a rape victim *only if *no conception has taken place (in other words, she’d have to get tested first). The morning after pill works in 1 of 2 ways… it prevents conception from happening by keeping the sperm inside the woman’s body from ever reaching the egg OR it keeps an already fertilized egg from implanting. The first is ok, the latter, not so much. No human life is ended in the process, and no abortion has taken place.
I hope that answers your question!
A
Abu
Guest
The morality of an action does not depend on efficiency but on intention. As has been clearly expressed, God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this by anyone while at the same time putting a man-made barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act. The infertile period is usually observable and may be used regularly only when there are serious reasons.
That the marital act may be completely divorced from its objective of procreation by self-imposing a barrier while acting, and thus having separated the act from its consequences opens the door to using sex with anyone or anything, such as masturbation, bestiality, homosexuality, IVF, cloning. That’s why God has implanted the natural moral law within human nature, so that we can use our reason from cause to effect. Bestiality is encouraged by some utilitarians.
By rejecting Christ’s mandate and asserting your feelings, views, desires, prejudices and opinions you reject Him, as Vatican II made very clear in Lumen Gentium, the *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church *#12.
Blessed John Paul II is incisively showing what a denial of the infallible doctrine in *Casti Connubii *(Pope Pius X, 1930) would mean – the total refusal to accept and assent to Christ’s mandate:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)
And as sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).
A
Abu
Guest
The fact of the natural moral law is not some obscure fantasy of “some people” but discovered by right reason by philosophers.
Sanity is the ability to face reality and to use our God-given reason from cause to effect in the natural moral law to acquire truth. The fact that we live in an ordered world created by God and endowed with reason means that He wants us to discover His laws.
The natural law means that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason, if his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism.
Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton), 2001, p 169).
For instance the Code of Hammarubi and the 42 negative confessions of the Ancient Egyptians.
Roman jurists had already developed the maxim that any doubts in cases of freedom or slavery, should be resolved in favor of liberty.—William E. H. Lecky (1838-1903), The Substance of History of European Morals (from Augustus to Charlemagne), 2 vols, ed. Clement Wood (New York: Vanguard Press, 1926), I, p 295.
For example, Roman jurist Domitius Ulpianus (c. 160 A.D. - 228 A.D.) had said, “by the law of nature all men are equal.”—Digest, L, 17.32; and “natural law regards all men as equal”—On Sabinus, Book XLIII.
L
Luvya
Guest
Nor true either. It depends on the productivity of the workforce.
L
Luvya
Guest
This should be a sticky, in bold letters, and anyone who states otherwise should have his or her nose rubbed into it.
So what? The majority of these new zygotes are naturally flushed out from the woman’s system. Of course to call a zygote a “person” is nonsense. Without a working brain there is no such thing as a “person”.
L
Luvya
Guest
Philosophers don’t discover anything. Philosophers speculate.
Is this a secular or religious reasoning? You start your argument with appealing to God, and creation and God’s alleged “wants”. A vacuous argument, until you can PROVE what you say.
You seem to confuse the “laws of nature” with “natural law” (whatever this “natural law” might be). I would like to see a rigorous definition.
A totally empty definition. A “law” pertaining to what? Enforced by whom? Growing tomatoes? A “law” is not a law unless it is enforced.
Well, they are not equal physically, they are not equal mentally, etc… if this “equality” means that they should be equal in the eyes of the law, then it is a good principle. But the “natural law” - repeated by the Christians ad-nauseam - allegedly says something (highly negative) about love between consenting adults if that love is non-procreative in its intent. That is sheer baloney, and it also shown that the “natural law” THESE DAYS is a religious and Christian concept - attested to by your own words at the beginning of your post.
- Status