Birth control speculation

[VanitasVanitatum]

then there would be peace and goodwill in the world.

It can be abused so people can commit atrocious crimes without reproach, so on its own it can easily create a world full of problems. If everyone followed the Catholic Church’s ethical system then everyone would be happier than that one.

 

[Wesrock]

fide:

When the path diverges: one road leads to life, and the other road leads to death, - but let’s suppose they are both unmarked: no signs pointing to which is which.
Are you content to ask opinions about whether to go right or left?

What is the use to ask opinions from the equally ignorant people? In such a case just toss a coin. The concept of “let the blind lead the unsighted” is not helpful to anyone.

So there is no need to come to a consensus on ethical systems if we all just consent to your ethical system?

Right.

You are much too “kind”, if you think that the “live and let live” was invented be me. Ethical systems are dime a dozen and they are all subjective. The “live and let live” offers the greatest level of freedom. And if everyone (and I mean “everyone”) subscribed to this system, then there would be peace and goodwill in the world.

I showed an example of this attitude when answering to @Elf01. I respect his opinion about birth control (or lack of it). Why can’t you (in general!) reciprocate this respect? Live and let live…

This isn’t correct. The Church’s teaching contraception is not based on “natural” or “unnatural”.

Many apologists say that NFP is acceptable because it does not interfere with the natural process, even though it is directed / aimed toward avoiding conception.

Yes, because that responds to my criticism, which still stands.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Which part of that response do you mean?

 

[Wesrock]

Badger to me.

“We don’t need to come to consensus about ethical systems if everyone just adopts the same ethical system.”

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It is hilarious that you wish to evaluate a method by analyzing what could happen, if the method is NOT followed .

Your method is followed and it does result in what I mentioned. Most likely you forgot that your preconceived notions of standard morality is not included in the live and let live philosophy.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

and read the posts in the “moral theology” forum, and see the incredible misery the poor teenagers feel when their normal and natural hormones lead to “sin” and fear of hell.

If they did follow it than they would not have those concerns. It is also usually a mental illness that causes them to react that way.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Mental illness??? What nonsense.

Ever heard of OCD? And the other point still stands.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The standard of morality IS principle of the Golden Rule - which is just another way to express the “live and let live”.

No it isn’t. Live and let live means tolerating what you don’t agree with and expect it in return. The Golden Rule is completely different and masochists can get away with some stuff even with its restrictions.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Where and in which countries is the concept of “live and let live” followed by EVERYONE?

Nowhere because there are laws that ban things and with good reason.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

which is the perfect realization of the “live and let live” principle.

They still aren’t the same thing.

OCD has nothing to do with the hormones of teenagers.

But it does have something to do with how they react with the guilt.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

What masochists do with their own body is none of your business.

But they can hurt others since it is something they want done to them.

There is no reason to ban the Golden Rule - see above. And since it never happened, you cannot make a declaration about its effectiveness

I’m talking about the live and let live principle not the Golden rule.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Sure they are.

It is going to take more than an Ipse Dixit fallacy to make me believe that.

The reaction is not the result of the act, it is the result of upbringing they received. And it is still not “OCD”

It can be and in those scenarios the fault is on the upbringing not the teachings.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Don’t do unto other that you would not want them do unto you”.

Live and let live only applies to tolerating ideas and does not confine all behaviors. By following it, someone who doesn’t believe or follow the golden rule should be tolerated.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The problem is the acceptance of the teachings. That is what causes the feelings of guilt, the fear of hell and other psychological disorders. When someone is convinced that the natural response to their raging hormones is “sinful” it directly leads psychological disorders

There are many who don’t have this reaction. And this only happens when you don’t follow the teachings.

 

[goout]

Many apologists say that NFP is acceptable because it does not interfere with the natural process, even though it is directed / aimed toward avoiding conception.

These discussions always wander because people use terms incorrectly or vaugely.

NFP is not aimed at avoiding conception. NFP is what it says it is: Natural family planning. Should a couple plan a family, or should it not? Yes, a family should use prudence and wisdom in planning and raising a family.
“The glory of God is a man fully alive”. We are not accidents. Life does not just happen to us. God has left us in our own counsel to intentionally direct our lives.

Birth control is not intrinsically evil, contraception is. When we say an act is evil, we are evaluating it morally. Contraception means a sex act that is disordered in some way to prevent conception.

NFP can be said to be birth control, although that really doesn’t express well what NFP is ordered to. NFP is not contraception.

People use both birth control and contraception to mean substances.
“Did you get some contraception”? Did you take your" birth control?"
Some people take “birth control” pills to regulate their hormones.
This is not how the Church uses these terms. In fact I don’t think the Church uses the term “birth control” at all in her teaching documents.

The act of contraception is what is intrinsically evil. And the periodic abstinence practiced in NFP is not an act of contraception.

People, really. Do you believe that someone with the intent of contracepting would go through the time and trouble to practice NFP? I know of literally no one who does that, and have never heard of anyone doing it.

 

[goout]

Suppose a new food was found (say an edible sponge in the ocean) that was very tasty and nutritious. It was deemed safe and marketed by food companies. Suppose also it made women temporarily infertile for a period of time after ingesting. If a woman were to eat this, not with the intent of birth control, but just for the enjoyment of the food, would this be considered engaging in the sin of birth control?

What if the woman enjoyed the food, then took some to her neighbor to share, while knowing the neighbor and husband were trying to conceive? And the woman ate it, then when her friend told her about the contraceptive properties, she failed to vomit it up, and then had still had relations with her husband.

Would this be a sin for either person?

 

[goout]

goout:

NFP can be said to be birth control, although that really doesn’t express well what NFP is ordered to. NFP is not contraception.

It is an attempt to avoid conception by practicing abstinence in the fertile period. You can play semantic games, if you want to.

It’s not a semantic game, it’s knowing what the words mean. Words mean things.
Contraception is an act that is morally evaluated. Is abstinence a sex act? No
Could someone theoretically practice NFP with ill will to avoid being open to life? Sure.
Do you actually know of someone who employs NFP with ill intent? I highly doubt it. Most of the NFP folks I know of have 4,6,8 children.

Birth control is not intrinsically evil, contraception is. When we say an act is evil, we are evaluating it morally. Contraception means a sex act that is disordered in some way to prevent conception.

You are welcome to use words like “disordered” and “evil”. But be aware that not just the non-Catholics, but a sizeable (and growing) number of Catholics disagree with your assessment.

The popularity of a particular moral issue is no consequence. And it’s not “my assessment” it’s what the Church teaches.

 

[goout]

Of course none of these practices could hinder God to “bless” people with children if God so desires. And we can always use the logical and rational argument: “If God would disagree with what we do, he could override it, for example with a miracle (No uterus? No problem! No ovulation? No problem! Miracle coming up!). Since he does not, he endorses the practice - if not explicitly, but implicitly.”

Can you explain this a little more clearly?