The analogy doesn’t work at all. Tying bulimia to condom usage from the beginning only serves to put it in an unfavorable position to begin with – and that, sir, is intellectually dishonest. You said it yourself.
So, in an argument that seeks to provide truth over persuasion, I’d prefer that you try not to analogize the situation. Analogies, more often than not, seek to promote our own biases more than they seek to discover the truth. By no means is “Natural Family Planning” the natural way of planning a family, and I do not have the charity to equate it to “skipping a meal”.
Persuasiveness aside, let’s try to discuss the nitty-gritty details. Natural Family Planning is exploiting the term of a woman’s ovulation cycle when the egg simply isn’t there, or the probabilities of pregnancy are low. How low? According to it’s supporters, low enough to equate it to other birth control methods in the accuracy of pregnancy prevention.
Now, you argue that procreation is the aspect that barrier methods are designed to thwart, no? Well, I would agree, actually. How can a sperm fertilize a non-existent egg that dissolved a day after it was released? NFP can be used for contraception. You’re thwarting the procreative aspect by eliminating the presence of the egg.
How could I make this into an analogy? Let’s say that two people are robbing two stores. One decided the method they’d rob the store because the door was open. The other used a brick. Both are robbing the store. In the case of NFP vs. Birth Control, both are thwarting the procreative aspects of sex.
Now, with whatever reasoning you’ve made for making NFP morally acceptable, take that and apply that to barrier methods. The world’s happy again.
To start with, what makes you think I am a “sir”?
I’m sorry that you cannot see how to equate NFP with skipping a meal. It’s a very straightforward analogy. You say that it’s unfair to connect it with intentionally throwing up – but I would simply ask you why intentionally throwing up a meal is bad? If you can answer that, then we can see if the leap to birth control is feasible.
Yes, analogies can only go so far, but I again have to point out that you are hung up on the
ends while I am discussing the
means.
To make use of your analogy of robbing a store: I would say that both people would be arrested and charged with robbery. However, the second person has the additional charge of breaking the window with a brick.
Let’s back that up and plug in contraception: The NFP couple and the condom couple are both “guilty” of wishing to avoid pregnancy. The condom couple has the additional charge of using artificial means to do so.
But here’s the part you continually miss – there is no “crime” in wishing to avoid pregnancy. So again using your analogy, the robbery charges are dropped. Guess what? There’s still the charge of the broken window!
Since we’re hopelessly lost in analogies, yours makes me think of another (sorry).
Suppose two couples are having a little financial trouble, and can’t stand to have any more bills come in the mail. The NFP-style couple will simply
avoid buying a few things and skip eating out for a couple of months. The “condom” couple
will not change their lifestyle, but they will then have to do something “artificial” to thwart the bills when they come, or at least scramble to pay them with money they barely have.
I’m not saying there’s anything immoral about running up a credit card balance (unless one knows that it will never be paid). But I’m trying to show you a difference between those two choices. You keep trying to say that NFP vs. condoms are essentially the same because of the end result. I agree the result is the same. But HOW you get that result is a critical element of Catholic moral theology.
BTW, did you get a chance to read the items from Seatuck’s post or Mark’s? Since my explanations seem to be falling flat, their links may be very helpful.
