Birth Control

[StTommyMore]

Which would also negate the need for NFP, right? I’m not sure why you seem to just throw out random comments, rather than try for an actual discussion. I’m also unclear why you seem to have avoided reading this thread, since several of your comments were previously addressed.

I will directly address your comments when you actually present an argument until then, why don’t you read this: The Catholic View of Artificial Contraception

 

[choose_to_love]

@kb, #525 I think

I am suggesting that the contraceptive subset, so to speak, is the Onan account. If the manner in which Onan violated the covenant and lied to God is of no matter, why is it recounted in the detail in which it is? IIRC, the text reads along the lines of “and what he did was detestable to God” , right after describing the coitus interruptus. Further, and perhaps my recollection here is faulty, the Hebrews of the OT were notably modest in how they describe sexual matters, and again, the fact that it is recounted with this level of detail is, to me, an indication that Onan’s actions were significant, not just his intent.

As to your next point in the next post - - “OBVIOUSLY” - - let me suggest that in a thread over 500 posts long, it is not obvious. The couple does not make the act sterile, biology does, and that biology was created by God. The marital act is intended to be unitive and procreative when it is engaged in, so of course it is not unitive when it is not engaged in; however, that is not the exclusive means of fostering unity within the marriage. And, as has been explained numerous times, it is still procreative, i.e., ordered to procreation, even when engaged in a subjectively infertile time, provided the couple does not intentionally separate the unitive from the procreative.

I am sorry you see this as insulting to God. I see it as respecting His creation, and working with it, not telling Him, I have a better way.

 

[Good_Daughter]

kbachler, you have so much coming at you, I’ll try to be brief.

And yet contraception existed in the time of Christ, and he made no attempt at this moment to speak against it.

While we have no written record of Christ ever using the term “contraception”, we know He was speaking of the proper order for married couples when He said,
'…the two shall become one flesh".

I don’t see how a married couple could reconcile Christ’s words with contraceptive use.

 

[agapewolf]

kbachler, you have so much coming at you, I’ll try to be brief.

While we have no written record of Christ ever using the term “contraception”, we know He was speaking of the proper order for married couples when He said,
'…the two shall become one flesh".

I don’t see how a married couple could reconcile Christ’s words with contraceptive use.

AND … Paul’s teaching about the marriage of Christ to his church being imaged in the marriage of a husband and wife.

 

[jilly4ski]

In other words, during a woman’s infertile period, it’s not more procreative. Let’s see you stick to an honest, informed, and rationale conversation in the spirit of our Lord,rather than taking an opportunity to just stick it to your fellow Christians.

And there are such things as fertility drugs which allowing that they permit for the conjugal union are permitted.

Oh, and, removing the use of a contraceptive device, does in fact increae fertility. So just as NFP has periods of increased and decreased fertility, a contraceptive has the same (used = decreased, not used = increased.)

You keep ignoring what we have been telling you. Procreative does not mean fertile. The couple can’t be more or less procreative, they either are or not when they engage in the marital act.

Thus when you are not engaging in the marital act you are not being procreative, but this is ok, because you are obviously not getting sex. When the couple has marital relations with ABC they are not being procreative because they have changed the marital act. A couple that uses NFP or nothing at all is being procreative because they have not changed the marital act, regardless of their fertility.

And no, removing a contraceptive devise does not increase fertility, it just allows for the natural fertility to resume, hopefully.

 

[kbachler]

You keep ignoring what we have been telling you. Procreative does not mean fertile. The couple can’t be more or less procreative, they either are or not when they engage in the marital act.

Thus when you are not engaging in the marital act you are not being procreative, but this is ok, because you are obviously not getting sex. When the couple has marital relations with ABC they are not being procreative because they have changed the marital act. A couple that uses NFP or nothing at all is being procreative because they have not changed the marital act, regardless of their fertility.

And no, removing a contraceptive devise does not increase fertility, it just allows for the natural fertility to resume, hopefully.

Sorry, I’m not ignoring it. In fact, I’ve stated several times that I’m not ignoring it.

When a couple uses NFP in order to change the timing and/or frequency of the marital act in order to avoid pregnancy, then they have in fact changed the marital act.

In fact, that is the reason NFP exists. The Act still has unity, it is not procreative. The couple is NOT open to children, as evidenced by the fact that they have changed the timing of the Act to when children are not possible.

The argument you make - that nothing has changed - is simply not believable. If nothing had changed, people would not use, nor seek out, NFP.

 

[kbachler]

I will directly address your comments when you actually present an argument until then, why don’t you read this: The Catholic View of Artificial Contraception

I have presented an argument, in fact several throughout this thread. Again, acting haughty does nothing to make you a better Christian.

 

[StTommyMore]

I have presented an argument, in fact several throughout this thread. Again, acting haughty does nothing to make you a better Christian.

Haughty? Who is the one essentially claiming that the Magisterium is wrong?

 

[agapewolf]

Sorry, I’m not ignoring it. In fact, I’ve stated several times that I’m not ignoring it.

When a couple uses NFP in order to change the timing and/or frequency of the marital act in order to avoid pregnancy, then they have in fact changed the marital act.

In fact, that is the reason NFP exists. The Act still has unity, it is not procreative. The couple is NOT open to children, as evidenced by the fact that they have changed the timing of the Act to when children are not possible.

The argument you make - that nothing has changed - is simply not believable. If nothing had changed, people would not use, nor seek out, NFP.

Not participating in an act is not changing the act. It is impossible to change something that doesn’t exist.

Read Love and Responsibility…this is address there.

 

[kbachler]

@kb, #525 I think

I am suggesting that the contraceptive subset, so to speak, is the Onan account. If the manner in which Onan violated the covenant and lied to God is of no matter, why is it recounted in the detail in which it is?

In order to establish his lie.

IIRC, the text reads along the lines of “and what he did was detestable to God” , right after describing the coitus interruptus.

Watch the context. It says that he said he would fulfill his duty, and then did coitus interruptus. It establishes that he lied.

Further, and perhaps my recollection here is faulty, the Hebrews of the OT were notably modest in how they describe sexual matters, and again, the fact that it is recounted with this level of detail is, to me, an indication that Onan’s actions were significant, not just his intent.

Well, they described some things clearly enough, like Noah’s indiscretions.

Again:
If Onan turned down obligation → punishment - public humiliation, covered in the Law.
If Onan spilled his seed → punishment - ritualistic washing, covered in the Law

By deductive logic (seriously, check a truth-table) → we can see that Onan did turn down the obligation (i.e. its TRUE) but he wasn’t subject to the proscribed punishment. Therefore, the first implication is FALSE.

If he spilled his seed (which is TRUE) the proscribed punishment is washing (which is false) so the implication is false.

There is a third possible implication:

Onan (who is in the line to David) LIES to Judah, the people, and God and is therefore put to death by God.

Here the antecedent and posterior are BOTH true, and hence the implication is TRUE.

I can’t see where there is any argument with there unless there is another implication to consider.

As to your next point in the next post - - “OBVIOUSLY” - - let me suggest that in a thread over 500 posts long, it is not obvious. The couple does not make the act sterile, biology does, and that biology was created by God.

Well in that case, when using a lambskin condom, the couple doesn’t make the Act sterile, the lamb does, and that Lamb was Created by God.

Look. In ALL CASES, it is the CHOICE of the couple. They are exhibiting the choice, the Free Will.

God made a rock too. If person A clunks person B in the head with a rock, then is it God’s responsibility or person A’s?

The COUPLE makes the choice - the COUPLE makes the Act infertile.

The marital act is intended to be unitive and procreative when it is engaged in, so of course it is not unitive when it is not engaged in; however, that is not the exclusive means of fostering unity within the marriage.

True, but irrelevant. You’re arguing to a point never made. The discussion centers on how RFP differs from ABC. Other unitive Acts are irrelevant to either.

And, as has been explained numerous times, it is still procreative, i.e., ordered to procreation, even when engaged in a subjectively infertile time, provided the couple does not intentionally separate the unitive from the procreative.

It HASN’T been explained. People have waived their hands and said “It’s still procreative”. HOW? How is it that when the couple makes an affirmative choice to perform the Act ONLY when the woman is infertile (and according to some posters today, this is MORE RELIABLE than other forms of contraception) then HOW, by ANY reasonable definition, is the couple engaging in an Act in which they are truly open to a pregnancy occurring? And if they are, then why did they engage in NFP to shift the timing of the Act to the woman’s infertile time frame?

I am sorry you see this as insulting to God. I see it as respecting His creation, and working with it, not telling Him, I have a better way.

God gave the woman a cycle and the couple a brain with which to determine how to work with it. God also gave us a brain that can develop latex and form it into a barrier. In both cases, the couple makes an active, affirmative decision to avoid pregnancy. By what means do you insist that in one case the couple is telling Him they have a better way, and NOT in the other case?

 

[kbachler]

Not participating in an act is not changing the act. It is impossible to change something that doesn’t exist.

Read Love and Responsibility…this is address there.

The lack of existence IS the change. Sorry, doesn’t work.

A counter example has already been given in this thread:

You tell your alcoholic spouse that they need to stop getting drunk daily (The Act), or you will leave. The spouse stops getting drunk daily (the Act now doesn’t exist).

Question: Do you leave because nothing has changed because you can’t change something that doesn’t exist?

 

[kbachler]

Haughty? Who is the one essentially claiming that the Magisterium is wrong?

Who is the one refusing to have a discussion? I’ve invited, and yet all you attempt to do is brow beat me.

If I’m the woman at the well, then talk to me and convince me as Jesus did. The example already exists for you.

 

[StTommyMore]

Who is the one refusing to have a discussion? I’ve invited, and yet all you attempt to do is brow beat me.

If I’m the woman at the well, then talk to me and convince me as Jesus did. The example already exists for you.

We have presented the teachings of the Church. It is actually your responsibility to prove the Church wrong

 

[kbachler]

kbachler, you have so much coming at you, I’ll try to be brief.

While we have no written record of Christ ever using the term “contraception”, we know He was speaking of the proper order for married couples when He said,
'…the two shall become one flesh".

I don’t see how a married couple could reconcile Christ’s words with contraceptive use.

Well, since Jews did sometimes use contraception, I don’t see where Christ’s word (which are a quote) imply that at all.

By the argument you present, why would we conclude that it is ok to use the knowledge from NFP to NOT have sex during parts of the cycle? During that period are they “one flesh”?

And thank you for a polite approach and comment. It IS appreciated.

 

[kbachler]

AND … Paul’s teaching about the marriage of Christ to his church being imaged in the marriage of a husband and wife.

And if a couple works together on NFP, or together on abstaining for a time, or together on contraception, how does that allegory break down for one, and not for the other?

Which is better - abstaining for periods, so that you can’t have the act of unity OR an act that is procreative, OR

Using a contraceptive, so that you can have an act of unity, that is significantly less procreative?

As I noted elsewhere in this thread, modern science has shown that the hormones released during sex are important for bonding, for intimacy and have health benefits. There is a reasonable argument to be made that maintaining unity and reducing the procreative aspect for a time is preferable to having periods that are BOTH unifying and procreative or neither unifying or procreative.

 

[kbachler]

It is actually your responsibility to prove the Church wrong

That’s some responsibility you’ve laid only on me. Have you no responsibility in ensuring that your Church is acting appropriately?

 

[jilly4ski]

Sorry, I’m not ignoring it. In fact, I’ve stated several times that I’m not ignoring it.

When a couple uses NFP in order to change the timing and/or frequency of the marital act in order to avoid pregnancy, then they have in fact changed the marital act.

In fact, that is the reason NFP exists. The Act still has unity, it is not procreative. The couple is NOT open to children, as evidenced by the fact that they have changed the timing of the Act to when children are not possible.

The argument you make - that nothing has changed - is simply not believable. If nothing had changed, people would not use, nor seek out, NFP.

Lets try to use some analogies.

We eat, and eating is good. But if I fast I am not eating. By fasting I am not changing the act of eating. I might be impacting/changing my physical health or my spiritual health but I am not changing the nature/purpose/essence of eating.
If instead I eat but throw up after eating, or use those pills that are supposed to prevent you from absorbing the food we eat, I am changing the act of eating, its nature, purpose or essence.

Now:
We have sex, and sex is good. But if I abstain I am not having sex. By abstaining, I am not changing the act of sex. I might be impacting/changing my spiritual health, marital relationship, and our chance of conceiving, but I am not changing the nature/purpose/essence of sex.
If instead, I have sex but prevent ejaculation into the vagina, or take a pill that prevents ovulation, the sperm from reaching the egg, or the shedding of the fertilized egg, I am changing the act of sex, its nature, purpose, or essence.

You had stated that you were familiar with high level logic, I guess I just assumed you were also familiar with Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy. (Some of these concepts are also enshrined on American law. A non-action cannot change an act, and a non-action is not on the same moral plane as an action.

 

[agapewolf]

Lets try to use some analogies.

We eat, and eating is good. But if I fast I am not eating. By fasting I am not changing the act of eating. I might be impacting/changing my physical health or my spiritual health but I am not changing the nature/purpose/essence of eating.
If instead I eat but throw up after eating, or use those pills that are supposed to prevent you from absorbing the food we eat, I am changing the act of eating, its nature, purpose or essence.

Now:
We have sex, and sex is good. But if I abstain I am not having sex. By abstaining, I am not changing the act of sex. I might be impacting/changing my spiritual health, marital relationship, and our chance of conceiving, but I am not changing the nature/purpose/essence of sex.
If instead, I have sex but prevent ejaculation into the vagina, or take a pill that prevents ovulation, the sperm from reaching the egg, or the shedding of the fertilized egg, I am changing the act of sex, its nature, purpose, or essence.

You had stated that you were familiar with high level logic, I guess I just assumed you were also familiar with Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy. (Some of these concepts are also enshrined on American law. A non-action cannot change an act, and a non-action is not on the same moral plane as an action.

Excellent…one more:

You can go into a church to pray. (marital act without abc)
You can walk by the church and do nothing(abstaining- morally neutral)
or you can go into the church and be destructive and desecrate (use of abc during sex- this does not provide any good that the first does…like “well, I’m closer to the tabernacle than I was before”…if you’re desecrating it, it is against it, not bringing you closer)

 

[kbachler]

Lets try to use some analogies.
We eat, and eating is good. But if I fast I am not eating. By fasting I am not changing the act of eating.

Here you are incorrect. You are changing the act of eating. You have chosen to eat less to the point of eating nothing. That’s a change in the act.

There is an analogy above, I’ll quote again:

W has an alcoholic husband, H, who gets drunk daily (the Act.) W insists that H must change the Act or she will leave. H could reduce his drinking to .0001 onces a day, but chooses instead to quit drinking entirely.

Should W now say “I’m leaving because you haven’t changed the Act?”

---

I’m sorry if I deal with things a “bit less than English” and more in a mathematical/logic way. That’s my primary training (although I work extensively in both). There’s no LOGICAL way that this isn’t viewed as changing the Act.

I might be impacting/changing my physical health or my spiritual health but I am not changing the nature/purpose/essence of eating.

Disagree. By not eating, the nature and essence has changed.

If instead I eat but throw up after eating, or use those pills that are supposed to prevent you from absorbing the food we eat, I am changing the act of eating, its nature, purpose or essence.

Disagree. The purpose of eating is still unchanged. You have only changed the nature and essence, just as above. One still eats for nutrition and/or the pleasure (taste etc.) of food.

Now:
We have sex, and sex is good. But if I abstain I am not having sex. By abstaining, I am not changing the act of sex.

Yes, you are, and this can be scientifically demonstrated by tracking hormones in the body.

I might be impacting/changing my spiritual health, marital relationship, and our chance of conceiving, but I am not changing the nature/purpose/essence of sex.

Disagree again. The PURPOSE remains unchanged. The nature and essence have changed, just as above.

If instead, I have sex but prevent ejaculation into the vagina, or take a pill that prevents ovulation, the sperm from reaching the egg, or the shedding of the fertilized egg, I am changing the act of sex, its nature, purpose, or essence.

Disagree again. You have not changed the purpose. It’s nature and essence have changed.

You had stated that you were familiar with high level logic, I guess I just assumed you were also familiar with Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy. (Some of these concepts are also enshrined on American law. A non-action cannot change an act, and a non-action is not on the same moral plane as an action.

I have taught Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy as part of a logic course I used to teach. I specifically made a point of including them when others did not. Please be aware that while these approaches are important from a historical perspective, they are discredited as true general approaches to logic and reasoning, because they make fundamental assumptions in their structure and approach that are not (necessarily) true. That’s not to say they can’t be useful, however, they cannot be generally relied upon.

One cannot call a flower any more natural than a hammer, since we and our ability to create is PART OF nature. We are just as much a part of God’s creation as a woman’s cycle is. Our mental ability to choose to use a woman’s cycle to avoid pregnancy is not intrinsically different than our mental ability to construct and use a condom. All of the ability was provided by God. If there is a differentiating factor (and I am not convinced there is) then it must be something different.

BTW, not necessarily in this case, but people also often make the mistake that natural is “good” (try poison oak for breakfast sometime) or that the only function is that of apparent form (sometimes form gives rise to multiple functions or there may be multiple forms, not all of which are immediately apparent.

 

[kbachler]

Excellent…one more:

You can go into a church to pray. (marital act without abc)
You can walk by the church and do nothing(abstaining- morally neutral)
or you can go into the church and be destructive and desecrate (use of abc during sex- this does not provide any good that the first does…like “well, I’m closer to the tabernacle than I was before”…if you’re desecrating it, it is against it, not bringing you closer)

I’m sorry, I don’t see the metaphors you’re trying to make here. I’m not trying to be difficult, I just really don’t see the point. At best, it appears to me that you’re defining the terms to be bad from the beginning, and if we simply say “It’s bad” then I don’t see what truth we’ve uncovered.