Birth Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter kdragonfly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kbachler said:
NFP is abstaining when you are likely to be fertile, AND not (necessarily) abstaining when you are not likely to be fertile. You ARE taking an act to contradict the possibility of conception, and, according to the stats people like to quote here, you are doing so in such a way that it is MORE LIKELY to decrease the possibility of conception than other forms of contraception.

Again - if it were not for the goal of being able to have sex without pregnancy, NFP would not exist per se. We would simply have, for example, abstention for prayer. The fact that its CALLED NFP belies the fact that it is “family planning” and hence “contraception.”
Click to expand...
Abstaining from sexual contact is just that.
It is NOT interference with a sexual act.
You seem to be spinning circles for yourself.

… but then, oops, I’m supposed to shut up and “be ashamed.”
 
spunjalebi said:
I think kbachler is pointing out that in both methods, there is avoidance of pregnancy. If avoidance of pregnancy is the goal, how is that different from a contraceptive? That is the point being made. It doesn’t matter if it’s natural or not, the fact is NFP aims to avoid pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Oh.
No comment on kbachler calling me a liar?
Telling me to be ashamed of myself?

Oh.
 
Em_in_FL said:
You know, you really don’t have to get defensive - it’s unnecessary. :o
Click to expand...
Actually, I do have to get defensive.
Insulting another CA member is against all forum rules.
I’d rather nip such attacks in the bud than let them flourish.

It’s a far cry from reporting a post as abusive.
 
FYI - dictionary.com considers natural methods as contraception.

contraception (ˌkɒntrəˈsɛpʃən)

— n
birth control Compare family planning the intentional prevention of conception by artificial or natural means. Artificial methods in common use include preventing the sperm from reaching the ovum (using condoms, diaphragms, etc), inhibiting ovulation (using oral contraceptive pills), preventing implantation (using intrauterine devices), killing the sperm (using spermicides), and preventing the sperm from entering the seminal fluid (by vasectomy). Natural methods include the rhythm method and coitus interruptus.
 
catharina said:
Actually, I do have to get defensive.
Insulting another CA member is against all forum rules.
I’d rather nip such attacks in the bud than let them flourish.

It’s a far cry from reporting a post as abusive.
Click to expand...
You are going to get the thread closed if you don’t stop. I’m not sure they meant you, meaning just you, catharina, or you all of us that follow NFP. Either way. Let it go.
 
catharina said:
Actually, I do have to get defensive.
Insulting another CA member is against all forum rules.
I’d rather nip such attacks in the bud than let them flourish.

It’s a far cry from reporting a post as abusive.
Click to expand...
Just ignore and stick to the facts… the truth speaks for itself. 😉

These questions are not attacks… sometimes the fundamental definitions aren’t understood until all these questions are answered.
 
kdragonfly said:
FYI - dictionary.com considers natural methods as contraception.

contraception (ˌkɒntrəˈsɛpʃən)

— n
birth control Compare family planning the intentional prevention of conception by artificial or natural means. Artificial methods in common use include preventing the sperm from reaching the ovum (using condoms, diaphragms, etc), inhibiting ovulation (using oral contraceptive pills), preventing implantation (using intrauterine devices), killing the sperm (using spermicides), and preventing the sperm from entering the seminal fluid (by vasectomy). Natural methods include the rhythm method and coitus interruptus.
Click to expand...
I don’t rely on outside sources for definitions of what the CHURCH means to say.
Why would anyone do so???
 
It’s still a valid source. NFP may be natural, but it is still considered contraception. There is no way around that.
 
kdragonfly said:
FYI - dictionary.com considers natural methods as contraception.

contraception (ˌkɒntrəˈsɛpʃən)

— n
birth control Compare family planning the intentional prevention of conception by artificial or natural means. Artificial methods in common use include preventing the sperm from reaching the ovum (using condoms, diaphragms, etc), inhibiting ovulation (using oral contraceptive pills), preventing implantation (using intrauterine devices), killing the sperm (using spermicides), and preventing the sperm from entering the seminal fluid (by vasectomy). Natural methods include the rhythm method and coitus interruptus.
Click to expand...
Controlling and regulating births is not the issue.
It simply:
  1. Must be justified (serious/just/grave reasons for doing so).
    and
  2. Must be done in a moral manner… i.e. not disassociating the unitive and procreative aspects.
 
happymommy said:
You are going to get the thread closed if you don’t stop. I’m not sure they meant you, meaning just you, catharina, or you all of us that follow NFP. Either way. Let it go.
Click to expand...
Really, there is no “they” and kbachler calling me a liar,
telling me to be “ashameded” of myself is what is not allowed …
not my pointing it out. The thread can’t be closed because
I’ve quoted the standard rules on CA. It could be closed for insults though.
 
kdragonfly said:
It’s still a valid source. NFP may be natural, but it is still considered contraception. There is no way around that.
Click to expand...
How the dictionary defines contraception is not relevant.
How the church defines it is.
 
catharina said:
Again:

NFP IS NOT CONTRACEPTION!

It provides no interference within the mariatl act.
So so so simple to grasp that!
Click to expand...
NFP is a natural form of contraception.

I think that the problem here is your definition of the word contraception, not the actual one.
 
catharina said:
Really, there is no “they” and kbachler calling me a liar,
telling me to be “ashameded” of myself is what is not allowed …
not my pointing it out. The thread can’t be closed because
I’ve quoted the standard rules on CA. It could be closed for insults though.
Click to expand...
ok, you pointed it out. now move on.
 
catharina said:
You seem to consider it a valid source.
Yet it contradicts Catholic teaching.

???
Click to expand...
Yeah, if someone tells me the world is flat, I’m going to look into that too and not take it at face value. There is nothing wrong with thoroughly researching an issue and getting as much information as possible. Suppression of information is a bit unnecessary, especially if the goal is for true understanding.
 
kdragonfly said:
Yeah, if someone tells me the world is flat, I’m going to look into that too and not take it at face value. There is nothing wrong with thoroughly researching an issue and getting as much information as possible. Suppression of information is a bit unnecessary, especially if the goal is for true understanding.
Click to expand...
I understand your point… but this discussion is about the morality of sexuality. The dictionary is not going to give you guidance in that. The church does…
Em_in_FL said:
Controlling and regulating births is not the issue.
It simply:
  1. Must be justified (serious/just/grave reasons for doing so).
    and
  2. Must be done in a moral manner… i.e. not disassociating the unitive and procreative aspects.
Click to expand...
 
kdragonfly said:
Yeah, if someone tells me the world is flat, I’m going to look into that too and not take it at face value. There is nothing wrong with thoroughly researching an issue and getting as much information as possible. Suppression of information is a bit unnecessary, especially if the goal is for true understanding.
Click to expand...
As a “Catholic in training” it seemed you were
looking to learn Catholic teaching. Not “what does the world say … .”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top