Barrier Method vs. NFP

[surritter]

Momor – There is a difference between using science to discover something that is already there (or dormant) and using science to cause or rearrange that activity or dormancy.

 

[Questionful]

momor:

That’s why I made this point earlier:
How can one say that both the procreative and unitive aspects of intercourse must be present for the act to be moral THEN say that limiting intercourse to when a woman is infertile is the only moral way to avoid pregnancy?
I don’t get the logic.

Then surriter corrected me and said:
Here’s the key: We don’t believe that “both the procreative and unitive aspects of intercourse must be present for the act to be moral.” Rather, we believe that a couple cannot do anything to directly hinder or remove either the procreative or unitive aspect. Notice the difference in those two sentences!

But his comment still brings me back to the same place, I don’t understand the logic of NFP, as I outlined in my last post.

Aye. Surriter’s response is basically where the debate ends, and NFP supporters insist that contraception is only wrong when blame can be put solely over the person contracepting. No disrespect intended, to supporters of NFP, but I feel like you deny the human guilt, and the human intervention involved in NFP out of fear that it too will be banned. Though, I feel that deep down, you all can see that there’s nothing natural about using thermometers to detect changes in body temperature that, without their use, would have been previously undetectable. I think that you all knoe w that within your lifetimes, you probably would not be able to diatinguish which cervical mucus levels indicate fertility, or infertility. It has only been through this scientific revelation that mankind has felt such power over it’s own life-giving mechanics that they have found ways around it that auccessfilly inhibit and promote life. It’s with this understanding that, with every act of contraception, the amount of guilt is the same - whether it’s NFP, of barrier usage. The only exceptions to this are abortion&celibacy.
I apologize now, because my train of thought has lost me, and I do not have the patience at the moment to recapture it.
I apologize again to those whose responses I’ve ignored, and to those who’ve grown frustrated with my spelling, and grammar. Please understand that this is not out of spite or pure negligence, but because I have a limited means of communication at the moment.

 

[Questionful]

Momor – There is a difference between using science to discover something that is already there (or dormant) and using science to cause or rearrange that activity or dormancy.

I disagree. Apply this reasoning to pharmaceutical drugs, viral&genetic vaccinations, surgery, gene therapy, and prosthetics.

 

[surritter]

I disagree. Apply this reasoning to pharmaceutical drugs, viral&genetic vaccinations, surgery, gene therapy, and prosthetics.

You have greatly misunderstood my statement. I didn’t say that using science to cause or redirect something in nature was wrong, QF. I said there’s a difference, which was really at the heart of Momor’s confusion.

Now take that difference and overlay it into the discussion of sexual intercourse. You were the one who has been insisting that NFP is the exact same thing as barrier methods, and my statement has delineated the difference.

Now, the “sin” part lies in what has separated the two aspects of sex: NFP uses the “discovery” idea, and barrier methods use the “cause or redirect” idea. You see, the sin is in the separation of aspects. NFP merely discovers – not causes – the separation of love-giving and life-giving.

 

[Magdalena09]

This thread makes my head spin.

It seems so simple to me. NFP is okay because it is working within the bounds set by God (our natural fertility cycle) to space children if necessary. Artificial contraception is not okay because it removes a fundamental component of the sexual act created by God.

What am I missing that makes this more complicated?

 

[NFPgirl]

In NFP, there’s no female fertility in the act. The essence of contraceptive NFP is about withholding fertility, and abstaining from sex until the wife is infertile. So, the only one who’s fertile in the sexual act would be the male. Let me reiterate this, female fertility is not involved when the couple is having sex and NFP is used for contraceptive purposes. If you time the act correctly, there is no fertility.

Actually, this is incorrect.

NFP embraces a woman’s fertility in that no matter when she gives herself to her husband, she knows that he is 100% fertile and there is a chance she may conceive a child. It is true that the window of highest fertility for a woman is relatively slim, but that does not mean it is the only time she can conceive. It is possible (though, granted, very improbable) that **a woman may conceive on any given day within her cycle **-- even when she is menstruating.

To say that “in NFP there’s no female fertility in the act” is scientifically incorrect. Most people think that for a woman, fertility is an all or nothing thing – i.e. a woman is in her fertile window or she isn’t. This is not the case. Women, like men, are fertile all the time; however, for women, it is a matter of when they are MOST fertile or, to use an NFP term, at the PEAK of their fertility. When a woman reaches her PEAK fertility, her body is at the place within the menstrual cycle where conception has the greatest probability of occurring.

I have definite thoughts regarding the main thrust of this discussion (barrier methods vs NFP and the related morality/immorality/unitive/non-unitive aspects of each, etc.) but I mainly wanted to make the point above.

 

[NFPgirl]

This thread makes my head spin.

It seems so simple to me. NFP is okay because it is working within the bounds set by God (our natural fertility cycle) to space children if necessary. Artificial contraception is not okay because it removes a fundamental component of the sexual act created by God.

What am I missing that makes this more complicated?

I feel your pain.

:whacky:This thread has made my eyes go together trying to wrap my head around why this is so complicated and difficult to understand. I have some ideas but I may be wrong in my understanding of the opposing views, so I’ll just keep my nose out of it (well, save the one post I did make just a bit ago) and go get me a slice of German Chocolate Cake and a glass of milk instead

 

[momor]

I have definite thoughts regarding the main thrust of this discussion (barrier methods vs NFP and the related morality/immorality/unitive/non-unitive aspects of each, etc.) but I mainly wanted to make the point above.

I for one would like to hear your thoughts. I’m having a hard time understanding the logic. Perhaps you can clarify things.

 

[Questionful]

See, if what you are saying in your first paragraph is correct, then sexual realitions would only be allowed when the woman is fertile. There is nothing illicit or immoral on having sexual relations when the wife is not fertile. We are not obliged to be intimate on fertile days. It’s part of a woman’s biology to be infertile during part of the month.

Well, no. I’m not saying that by chance, and not by scientific observances of the body, the couple has sex during the infertile part of a woman’s cycle, that they are culpable for knowingly exploiting the woman’s infertility to have infertile sex. They didn’t know that she was infertile to begin with! The equality in NFP’s wrongness with Barrier Methods is that you’re deliberately acting to prevent conception. If you tell me that those calendars and thermometers aren’t deliberate actions being used to determine infertility, then I think that the only “support” for your argument consists of fallible Papal teachings.

Anyways, back to the argument. I’d like to reiterate that I don’t find anything wrong with engaging in sex during a woman’s infertile period, or having sex after a woman’s lost the ability to produce children. My argument is that NFP consists of what NFP practitioners maintain that it does not – deliberate actions to make the sexual act infertile. Unnatural actions/methods are being employed to guarantee that the couples will not have sex during the wife’s infertile period.

My disagreement with people who argue that NFP does not take deliberate action to make sex infertile. If you look at the amount of unnatural human involvement in determining that sex at this time is either fertile or infertile, you can see what I’m trying to get at.

How can you argue that using thermometers, and measuring your body’s basal body temperature is not a deliberate action to assure infertility? Does a man instinctively sense that his wife has no cervical mucus, and from that instinct, he can sense that sex will not be fruitful? No, he certainly does not. So, if he took appropriate actions to find out, he was taking deliberate actions to ensure that he would only be having sex while his wife was infertile. He was deliberately making sex infertile.

Natural Family Planning is by not a natural, and it is a direct action against the fertility of sex.

Also, by using contraceptives, barrier methods, the couple is doing what would normally bring about a baby, when it is likely a baby could be conceived and using an outside product to insure a baby does not occur. What would be the difference between a barrier and mutual masturbation?

So you’re arguing that the use of an outside product to insure a baby does not occur is wrong?

First of all, a condom does not ensure that a baby will not occur. Have you seen the “Maury” show? But let me use your terminology, because I know what you mean. Thermometers determine the basal body temperature of the women, and from that, you can determine whether a baby will not occur. Outside product determining/“insuring” that either an egg is or isn’t there to be fertilized.

There really doesn’t need to be a coming to an agreement…contraceptives that alter fertility or prevent fertility are not permitted. They are morally wrong. One either agrees with Mother Church or not. But the Church is not wrong.

I’ll just ignore that last comment about the teaching. I think that a lot has to be said about universal, objective moral Truth if it takes philosophical acrobatics to come to one conclusion. Oh, and don’t get me started on how the Catholic Church has changed it’s stance on Usury~! Though, this is not the thread for discussions on the infallibility of the Church, and I will not derail it.

 

[Questionful]

Actually, this is incorrect.

NFP embraces a woman’s fertility in that no matter when she gives herself to her husband, she knows that he is 100% fertile and there is a chance she may conceive a child. It is true that the window of highest fertility for a woman is relatively slim, but that does not mean it is the only time she can conceive. It is possible (though, granted, very improbable) that **a woman may conceive on any given day within her cycle **-- even when she is menstruating.

To say that “in NFP there’s no female fertility in the act” is scientifically incorrect. Most people think that for a woman, fertility is an all or nothing thing – i.e. a woman is in her fertile window or she isn’t. This is not the case. Women, like men, are fertile all the time; however, for women, it is a matter of when they are MOST fertile or, to use an NFP term, at the PEAK of their fertility. When a woman reaches her PEAK fertility, her body is at the place within the menstrual cycle where conception has the greatest probability of occurring.

I have definite thoughts regarding the main thrust of this discussion (barrier methods vs NFP and the related morality/immorality/unitive/non-unitive aspects of each, etc.) but I mainly wanted to make the point above.

Yes. I understand that. Or rather, I think I do. You’re just arguing semantics, right?

If not, do you agree with me when I say:
During the “infertile” phase of her cycle, an egg is not present. The egg is in the process, or already has, dissolved. The “infertile” phase of a woman’s cycle refers to the times when an egg is not present, and will not be (According to the methods of deduction, because there are always outside elements that may contradict this.) present for the duration of the average sperm’s lifetime.

If this is not the case, please teach me what the “infertile” phase really refers to, so that my argument is more accurate. No disrespect intended by my blunt language, but I’d rather just get at the heart of the matter – the morality of it’s use, and how it can be reasoned that it’s use is more moral than barrier methods.

 

[Questionful]

You have greatly misunderstood my statement. I didn’t say that using science to cause or redirect something in nature was wrong, QF. I said there’s a difference, which was really at the heart of Momor’s confusion.

Ah, I apologize for my misunderstanding. Though, I can honestly say that I’m glad that you did not mean what I thought you had meant at the time. Let me re-examine your previous statement before I address the rest of your post.

There is a difference between using science to discover something that is already there (or dormant) and using science to cause or rearrange that activity or dormancy.

I can support the idea that it discovering a phenomena is not the same as developing a method to replicate/manipulate the phenomena. Technology either comes from discovery, or leads to it.

However, I can’t say that it’s immoral to replicate/manipulate the phenomena involved. Otherwise, things like vaccines would intrinsically be immoral.

Now take that difference and overlay it into the discussion of sexual intercourse. You were the one who has been insisting that NFP is the exact same thing as barrier methods, and my statement has delineated the difference.

Ah, but you’re saying that the difference between the two is a moral difference. I’d disagree with that. Treating NFP simply as the discovery of infertility would be like relating barrier methods to discovering that barriers can separate an egg from a sperm.

Now, the “sin” part lies in what has separated the two aspects of sex: NFP uses the “discovery” idea, and barrier methods use the “cause or redirect” idea. You see, the sin is in the separation of aspects. NFP merely discovers – not causes – the separation of love-giving and life-giving.

While persuasive at first, I do find that after a moment of reflection, the inaccuracy in this reasoning become apparent.

First of all, NFP is not simply a discovery of fertility. In the case of NFP, you’re deliberately attempting to discover an infertile period of time within the wife’s menstruation, and you’re deliberately doing this to make sure that sex infertile. NFP is a deliberate action to isolate a time where infertility is not just possible, but 99.6% probable according to the claims of some methods.

The intrinsic evil of the contraceptive act is rooted in it’s deliberate attempt at making the sex (act) infertile. NFP is the deliberate attempt to “discover” a time when sex will be infertile, and use that “discovery” to make sex infertile.

 

[Questionful]

Let me summarize very simply some elements I see in your discussion so far:

1. Avoidance of pregnancy for good reason is moral
2. Both NFP and Barrier methods are contraception by dictionary definition
3. Conception = ovum + sperm
4. Barrier methods remove the sperm from the conception equation
5. NFP removes the egg from the conception equation
6. Both methods involve the use of some technology outside of the natural act (a physical barrier or NFP methodologies)
7. Both methods are open to life due to potential for failure in the method used
8. NFP is more moral than a barrier because it involves abstinence during fertility
9. Barriers are just as moral as NFP

So it seems to me that what is implied by NFP but has not been said is that for a couple to be acting morally in avoiding pregnancy there must be an element of sacrifice or mortification (the abstinence) involved.
Is this the Catholic teaching?
Because it really seems like that is the only thing that ultimately separates your 2 positions.

#1-6 are correct without a doubt.

#7 depends on what you believe “open to life” means.
I’d consider that both are “open to life” in that their failure leads to life.
I’d consider that neither are “open to life” in the sense that, if they’re being used to be contraceptive, pregnancy is not preferred. Though, I guess they are more “open to life” in that neither method deliberately seeks to cause a miscarriage or abortion. Whether NFP alters the ability for a blastocyst (fertilized ovum) to implant because of it’s timing is unknown to me, but at the time, I have no reason to believe that the mechanics of NFP entail this.

#8 No. The traditional argument for NFP’s morality is that it does not deliberately seek to alter/circumvent fertility. It does not alter fertility, but it does deliberately circumvent it. In reality, the argument supporting NFP’s morality is closer to this:
My wife has times where she is naturally fertile, and infertile. If I find out when, and I have sex during the time, I’m not deliberately doing anything to make sex infertile! Thus, I can’t be guilty of making sex infertile!
… I’d argue against this. If you find out when your wife is infertile, and only have sex during the times where she is, you’re deliberately making your sexual act infertile. This action is just as deliberate as placing a barrier between your sperm, and her egg.

#9 That’s a matter of debate/personal opinion. I’d agree, but others may not.

In response to your final summary, I’d disagree. The morality of the issue lies in who you can point your finger at for why the sex was infertile.

 

[Questionful]

The teaching on contraception has always been taught by the universal and ordinary magisterium. It is in the CCC and various encyclicals. It is deemed intrinsically evil. Are you claiming that the teaching is fallible in that it may be reversed at some point?

No, it has not been acknowledged as an infallible by the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium, and it has not always been taught within the Church hierarchy.

The Winnipeg Statement, and various debates amongst Bishops, Priests, Theologians, etc. demonstrate that there is no consensus among all Bishops that the teaching on contraception is unchangable truth.

Always? How far back does “always” date? Castii Connubii, to my knowledge, is the earliest encyclical to address the issue of birth regulation, and it was only promulgated by Pope Pius XI on 12/31/1930. So, I think it’d be closer to say that this position on birth regulation has only been circulated since 1931. The next encyclical of the subject was Humanae Vitae, which was promulgated by Pope

Would I be wrong to assume that by CCC, you mean the Catechism of the Catholic Church? If that’s true, then that only represents the current moral teachings observed by the of the Church. Whether they’re taught, or believed to be true by the Laity, and all Priests/Bishops/etc. is a different matter entirely. But if you meant something else by CCC, feel free to correct me.

 

[Questionful]

OK…even before NFP was discovered, women were still able to conceive just 3 or 4 days a month. Even if I have no clue on how my fertility works, I am still only fertile 3-4 days a month. That knowledge is pretty absolute among human females.

You still seem to be trying to make 2 arguments that make no sense simultaneously.

1. It is immoral to have sex unless you are fertile

and

1. sex with a condom is just the same thing.

Please don’t waste time pulling articles regarding the immorality of NFP. I listen to Theologians faithful to Rome.

Well, whether or not you’ll look at it, here is the link to the article that I’ve promised to show you:
americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10960

 

[Questionful]

No, it has not been acknowledged as an infallible by the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium, and it has not always been taught within the Church hierarchy.

The Winnipeg Statement, and various debates amongst Bishops, Priests, Theologians, etc. demonstrate that there is no consensus among all Bishops that the teaching on contraception is unchangable truth.

Always? How far back does “always” date? Castii Connubii, to my knowledge, is the earliest encyclical to address the issue of birth regulation, and it was only promulgated by Pope Pius XI on 12/31/1930. So, I think it’d be closer to say that this position on birth regulation has only been circulated since 1931. The next encyclical of the subject was Humanae Vitae, which was promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1968.

Would I be wrong to assume that by CCC, you mean the Catechism of the Catholic Church? If that’s true, then that only represents the current moral teachings observed by the of the Church. Whether they’re taught, or believed to be true by the Laity, and all Priests/Bishops/etc. is a different matter entirely. But if you meant something else by CCC, feel free to correct me.

But yeah, I do hope that one day the teaching evolves – Like how the Church’s stance on usury has evolved from a ban on all usury, to a ban on only some certain types of usury.

“Therefore, if the influence of events or of the times has led to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of doctrine, these should be appropriately rectified at the prop*er moment”
I’ve quoted this from America Magazine’s article on Humanae Vitae. They quoted it from the November 1964 “Decree on Ecumenism” by Vatican II.

 

[fix]

No, it has not been acknowledged as an infallible by the Ordinary and Universal Magesterium, and it has not always been taught within the Church hierarchy.

It certainly has always and everyhwere been taught as binding by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The Winnipeg Statement, and various debates amongst Bishops, Priests, Theologians, etc. demonstrate that there is no consensus among all Bishops that the teaching on contraception is unchangable truth.

No, that is not proof it is fallible that is proof of dissent.

See here:

Moreover, when speaking of the need to verify the actual consent of all the Bishops dispersed throughout the world or even of the whole Christian people in matters of faith and morals, it should not be forgotten that this consent cannot be understood only <synchronically,> but also . This means that a morally consent embraces every era of the Church, and only if this totality is heard does one remain faithful to the Apostles. “If in some quarter”, the wise Cardinal Ratzinger observes, “a majority were to be formed in opposition to the faith of the Church in other times, it would not be a majority at all”.2

Always? How far back does “always” date? Castii Connubii, to my knowledge, is the earliest encyclical to address the issue of birth regulation, and it was only promulgated by Pope Pius XI on 12/31/1930. So, I think it’d be closer to say that this position on birth regulation has only been circulated since 1931. The next encyclical of the subject was Humanae Vitae, which was promulgated by Pope

Contraception has always been seen as evil. Even the bible states this.

Would I be wrong to assume that by CCC, you mean the Catechism of the Catholic Church? If that’s true, then that only represents the current moral teachings observed by the of the Church. Whether they’re taught, or believed to be true by the Laity, and all Priests/Bishops/etc. is a different matter entirely. But if you meant something else by CCC, feel free to correct me.

The CCC is the sure norm for teaching the faith and if you follow the footnotes you will find more documentation. Dissent is not proof some item is open to be reversed.

 

[fix]

I

In the meantime, I have a couple of comments:

Fix posted this quote:
Contraception is not the same as birth control. In addition to
contraception there are many other ways of controlling births, some morally
good, others morally wicked. One can control births by abortion–a morally
evil way–or by abstaining from coition, either permanently or
periodically. Neither of these latter methods of birth control is
contraceptive.

An agreement is needed on the meaning of the terms contraception and birth control.

1–noun. the deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation by any of various drugs, techniques, or devices; birth control.
dictionary.com

2-n. Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.
American Heritage Dictionary

3-Use of agents, devices, methods, or procedures which diminish the likelihood of or prevent conception.
Medical Dictionary Online

These definitions would indicate that NFP is contraception as a technique, a sexual practice, and a method and NFP is birth control.

We are not talking only about the medical use of the word but the theological use as well. Contraception means against life or against the beginning. NFP is not against life.

Second comment:
How one can say that both the procreative and unitive aspects of intercourse must be present for the act to be moral THEN say that limiting intercourse to when a woman is infertile is the only moral way to avoid pregnancy?

I don’t get the logic! If you say because it’s still open to life, it can be argued that a couple who is employing test strips and blood tests and fertility meters (take a look at the other NFP forums here) along with the other physical observations could easily be at about 99.9% accuracy. How open to life is that?
Under those circumstances I think it can be argued that the use of a condom with it’s much higher failure rate is more open to life.

It is not about likelihood of conception. It is about having the act correctly ordered. It is always a life offering act if it is not altered. This is true even if both people are 99 years old and indirectly sterilized due to some pathology.

 

[fix]

I feel your pain.

:whacky:This thread has made my eyes go together trying to wrap my head around why this is so complicated and difficult to understand. I have some ideas but I may be wrong in my understanding of the opposing views, so I’ll just keep my nose out of it (well, save the one post I did make just a bit ago) and go get me a slice of German Chocolate Cake and a glass of milk instead

Yes, it is easy to grasp. The problem is not about particular arguments. The problem is about authority. The Church has the authority in this matter and She presents logical and clear explanations. The point is that the explanation, no matter how clear, will not be accepted by those who refuse to be convinced. See, it is not about sexual ethics or devices, or charts. It is about docile submission to Christ through His Church.

 

[fix]

But I think that using NFP methodology to determine the wife’s infertile period does directly hinder or remove the procreative aspect. The couple employs their methodology in timing the marital act and it becomes the hindering factor. The methodology is a ‘thing’ outside of the act itself that informs the couple’s ability to remove one of the necessary elements (the ovum) and hinders procreation.

I’m beginning to think that Questionful is coming closer to defining the reason why it is so hard to come to agreement on this topic. He states that theologians originally were against NFP and I think he is implying that somewhere along the line they caved in to pressure from the faithful for a licit way to prevent conception. They started down a slippery slope and now reasonable people are debating NFP vs barrier methods because the logic of the Church’s position in supporting one and not the other is flawed.

This was written back in 1927:

Contraception is commonly called birth-control; an unfortunate
term, since birth-control as such obviously is a reasonable and
necessary thing. Catholics would be the last to deny that the
human reason should control as far as possible such an important
matter as the coming of new life into the world, with its added
responsibilities to the parents. In point of fact, the very
institution of marriage is a method of birth-control, since it
limits procreation to those conditions in which a child will be
cared for.

The Catholic Church’s condemnation is directed at the means
employed for birth-control. What is opposed is not birth-control
or the regulation of births, but certain methods of ensuring
this. They are generally without qualification called birth
control, but more accurately they should be classed under the
term of contraception. They consist in altering or interfering
with the natural character of sex-intercourse, or its antecedent
or consequent processes. They are species of injustice or of
impurity: of injustice when the family and social quality of sex
is affected; of impurity when the sex impulse itself is
disorganized. All wrongful methods of birth-control fall under
these heads. Unjust methods may be reduced to sterilization and
abortion, impure methods to onanism.

The attempt to secure sex satisfaction without the complete sex
act disorganizes the rational and natural arrangement of powers
to their proper ends, the proper purpose of sex powers being the
life-offering action of intercourse. With respect to the deed,
there is little essential difference between contraceptive
intercourse and mutual masturbation, though admittedly the
surrounding psychological circumstances make for a different
situation…

 

[surritter]

I can support the idea that it discovering a phenomena is not the same as developing a method to replicate/manipulate the phenomena. Technology either comes from discovery, or leads to it.

However, I can’t say that it’s immoral to replicate/manipulate the phenomena involved. Otherwise, things like vaccines would intrinsically be immoral.

I’ll have to clarify my statement again. I never said that it’s immoral to replicate/manipulate/cause/redirect natural occurrences. I was careful to set the stage and then overlay the idea to the sexual act, where replicating/manipulating etc. IS immoral.

Yes, in a way vaccines interfere with a natural act (a virus/bacteria making you ill). But the interference they do is not one that involves two intertwined aspects that are sinful to separate. So once again, we must go back to the morality of separating love-giving from life-giving.

While persuasive at first, I do find that after a moment of reflection, the inaccuracy in this reasoning become apparent. [The reasoning stated that NFP discovers about fertility instead of manipulating or redirecting it. – surritter]

First of all, NFP is not simply a discovery of fertility. In the case of NFP, you’re deliberately attempting to discover an infertile period of time within the wife’s menstruation, and you’re deliberately doing this to make sure that sex infertile. NFP is a deliberate action to isolate a time where infertility is not just possible, but 99.6% probable according to the claims of some methods.

The intrinsic evil of the contraceptive act is rooted in it’s deliberate attempt at making the sex (act) infertile. NFP is the deliberate attempt to “discover” a time when sex will be infertile, and use that “discovery” to make sex infertile.

This last paragraph leads you into trouble. As other posters have pointed out, the obvious conclusion to draw would be that a couple must always try to get pregnant with each act of intercourse. Are you prepared to defend that?

And yes, NFP is simply a method of discovery. Rather than conception, for a moment think about end-of-life morality issues:

• If I use science to discover that I have terminal cancer and I have a prognosis of 6 months to live, is that a DIRECT action?
• If an enemy of mine locks me in a radioactive room where I contract cancer, is that a DIRECT action?