Birth Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter kdragonfly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kbachler said:
My point is clear - if NFP is moral and other forms of family planning are not, then what is the difference that makes that so?

I have yet to see anyone here apologizing for NFP come up with a reason other than “because someone said so.” If you understand the difference, please (and I really mean this) please, tell us.
Click to expand...
NFP is the only method which does not disassociate the unitive and procreative aspects of marital sexuality.
 
catharina said:
Now I start to wonder if you’re trolling here.
Click to expand...
Not at all. No part of your argument as given eliminated the Pill from consideration. I’m asking for a clear argument of the difference between NFP and other forms of family planning. I am asking for it seriously.

You seem to be taking the responsibility of providing an answer. But your answers have holes. The above shows you one.

If you are accepting the responsibility, then do it and do it well. But don’t criticize me for holes in your argument.
 
kbachler said:
Catharina, I’d rather be unintentionally insulting and get people who have blind faith to think, rather than have them simply repeat bad arguments that they don’t seem to understand. To me, blind faith is an insult, and an insult against God.

The two most important commandments included: “Love God with all your heart, and spirit and MIND”. It is the “mind” part that means to me that people need to strive to understand God. (That isn’t claiming that they will understand everything, but God clearly reveals Himself so its clear that he is making Himself understandable.)

My point is clear - if NFP is moral and other forms of family planning are not, then what is the difference that makes that so?

I have yet to see anyone here apologizing for NFP come up with a reason other than “because someone said so.” If you understand the difference, please (and I really mean this) please, tell us.
Click to expand...
You are presenting insultingly flimsy argumentations that have been passed around since the 1960s into the 70s, the 80s, the 90s and now the early years of the 2000s. For all of those years, I’ve been an adult. It is absolutely disgusting to hear folks present the same tired aruments against God and logic!

What can’t you understand?

One process is NATURAL.
One process is ARTIFICIAL.

Sems very clear to me.
 
catharina said:
You are presenting insultingly flimsy argumentations that have been passed aroung since the 1960s into the 70s, the 80s, the 90s and now the early years of the 2000s. It is absolutely disgusting to hear folks present the same tired aruments against God and logic!

What can’t you understand?

One process is NATURAL.
One process is ARTIFICIAL.

Sems very clear to me.
Click to expand...
Please be kind. Actually his point is valid. NFP isn’t moral simply because it’s “natural”. It’s valid because it doesn’t disassociate the procreative and unitive aspects of marital unity.
 
Em_in_FL said:
Please be kind. Actually his point is valid. NFP isn’t moral simply because it’s “natural”. It’s valid because it doesn’t disassociate the procreative and unitive aspects of marital unity.
Click to expand...
Natural because there is no disruption of the procreative/unitive aspects.
YES.
 
Em_in_FL said:
NFP is the only method which does not disassociate the unitive and procreative aspects of marital sexuality.
Click to expand...
  1. How is it that by NFP focusing the marital act on infertile periods does not disassociate fhe unitive and procreative aspects of marital sexuality?
  2. Since it is claimed that NFP results in lower pregnancy rates than other forms of family planning, how is it argued that the Pill, for example, DOES disassociate the unitive and procreative aspects of marital sexuality? According to the information provided it is more possible to be procreative with the Pill, AND one does not have to limit the unitive act to certain times of the month.
  3. If both people agree on the type of family planning, then how does ANY family planning ever disassociate the unitive act, and since they have comparable failure rates (and result in more pregnancies than practitioners of NFP claim) how can we claim that they disassociate the unitive and procreative acts MORE THAN NFP?
  4. If NFP does not disassociate the unitive and the procreative acts, then why does it exist?
 
@kb: What is the couple doing to render the act infertile that would not happen anyway? Put another way, the couple is not rendering the act sterile, biology (authored by God) is rendering the act sterile, if in fact the woman is not fertile. Put yet another way, not having sex doesn’t make the woman infertile, she either is or isn’t by the operation of her body’s functions.

Wow, a lot of points to address.

One can quibble about semantics, but the Church is not against the definition of words, nor is the issue truly the definition of words; rather, the Church teaches that it is wrong to separate the procreative aspect of the marital act from the unitive part of it, because God has put them together. I think, however, that it is fair to say that in the realm of moral theology, the Church understands contraception to mean a deliberate action taken to make the marital act sterile; it is something of a term of art within such a discussion. The point is rather that one understands the concepts involved, as opposed to getting bogged down in the terminology. If one chooses to discuss this issue on moral theology sub-forum of a Catholic board, it seems, IMO, to make sense to know what each side means by the terms they use.

Further, efficacy has nothing to do with the morality of either ABC (as understood by the Church) or NFP, nor strictly speaking, do the terms natural and artificial. Lots of artificial things are moral, i.e., setting a broken bone, but that is because it helps the system to function as intended. Birth regulation can be an aspect of responsible parenthood. It is the means of accomplishing that which is at issue. The ends do not justify the means.

As has been noted elsewhere in the thread, “open to life” is a shorthand, and as I think about it, it is shorthand for “does not intentionally separate the procreative and unitive parts of the marital embrace”; however, it is my recollection that the concept is ordered to procreation. In this context, ordered to procreation means that one brings whatever fertility one has at the time of the marital act. Therefore, a post-menopausal woman can, by definition, have procreative sex, in that she is not deliberately blocking her fertility. One can find that an unsatisfying way of describing it, but the concept of not deliberately blocking fertility is the crux of the matter, not whether it is described as procreative or not, if you follow my meaning, kb.

Whew. I’m probably 50 posts behind from what I was trying to respond to. Hope to have more later.
 
And this is an interesting coincidence that may help…

Wikipedia distinguishes the difference between “Contraception” and “Birth Control”.
“Contraception” does not list Natural Family Planning (rhythm, FAM, LAM, whathaveyou).
“Birth Control” does.

The Church teaches that controlling and regulating births is not an 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. <— This is where “contraception” is not allowed.
Hope this clarifies some of the terms a bit…
 
Em_in_FL said:
Please be kind.
Click to expand...
As an act of kindness to myself and others, I’m going to take a break from this thread. Having lived through the start of such argumentation in the 1960s, having no doubt about the grief such brought to the Church, I am hard-pressed to be dispassionate about this topic. So … I’ll go and do some errands.
 
kbachler said:
I have yet to see anyone here apologizing for NFP come up with a reason other than “because someone said so.” If you understand the difference, please (and I really mean this) please, tell us.
Click to expand...
The intent of using NFP to avoid conception is exactly the same as is the intent of ABC. It really is and I believe most non-reactionaries here will agree. The difference between the two is that ABC separates the procreative aspect from the unitive. Now you and I may agree that NFP does as well, but by the Church’s terminology, (with procreative simply meaning having sex as though you were trying to have a baby if you could) it does not. If you cannot accept that and will not use Church terminology, you won’t get very far in these discussions.

So here is the path would recommend you travel…why can’t the procreative and unitve aspect of the act be separated? Focus on that question and see where it leads.

Also, EminFL is the one with whom you should have this discourse with, imo. I would not engage the other more inflammatory responders…you will get the thread shut down.
 
catharina said:
You are presenting insultingly flimsy argumentations that have been passed around since the 1960s into the 70s, the 80s, the 90s and now the early years of the 2000s. For all of those years, I’ve been an adult. It is absolutely disgusting to hear folks present the same tired aruments against God and logic!

What can’t you understand?

One process is NATURAL.
One process is ARTIFICIAL.

Sems very clear to me.
Click to expand...
Catharina, they aren’ flimsy arguments. If they are, just answer them.

Let’s try this:

What is NATURAL about making a couple wait till certain times of the month for the marital act?

What is artificial about using a man-made concept to block sperm? God made the man that has the brain that came up with both NFP and the condom? The condom is - say - lambskin. What part is unnatural?

NFP is just as artificial, or other family planning methods are just a natural. NONE of them appear to be Biblical. So where is this answer coming from?
 
kbachler said:
  1. How is it that by NFP focusing the marital act on infertile periods does not disassociate fhe unitive and procreative aspects of marital sexuality?
Click to expand...
NFP is only information. You can choose when to have marital relations - this falls under “Free Will”. Nothing is altered in the act. Married couples give themselves ENTIRELY to each other - without any blocks, barriers, or desires to alter God’s creation.
kbachler said:
  1. Since it is claimed that NFP results in lower pregnancy rates than other forms of family planning, how is it argued that the Pill, for example, DOES disassociate the unitive and procreative aspects of marital sexuality? According to the information provided it is more possible to be procreative with the Pill, AND one does not have to limit the unitive act to certain times of the month.
Click to expand...
Procreative does not mean conceiving - remember? fertility plays no role. Effectivity is not a factor in morality.
kbachler said:
  1. If both people agree on the type of family planning, then how does ANY family planning ever disassociate the unitive act, and since they have comparable failure rates (and result in more pregnancies than practitioners of NFP claim) how can we claim that they disassociate the unitive and procreative acts MORE THAN NFP?
Click to expand...
Catechism quote:
Thus the innate LANGUAGE that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory LANGUAGE, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . **The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.**160
Click to expand...
kbachler said:
  1. If NFP does not disassociate the unitive and the procreative acts, then why does it exist?
Click to expand...
For times when couples PRAYERFULLY feel that they cannot handle another child at that moment. There are many reasons that would be valid - physical, mental, emotional health, finances, housing, etc… these motives must not be selfish.
 
kbachler said:
Catharina, they aren’ flimsy arguments. If they are, just answer them.

Let’s try this:

What is NATURAL about making a couple wait till certain times of the month for the marital act?

What is artificial about using a man-made concept to block sperm? God made the man that has the brain that came up with both NFP and the condom? The condom is - say - lambskin. What part is unnatural?

NFP is just as artificial, or other family planning methods are just a natural. NONE of them appear to be Biblical. So where is this answer coming from?
Click to expand...
kbachler:

You are chasing your tail with the whole artificial/natural line of thought. Ignore it.
 
Rico_S said:
**Now you and I may agree that NFP does as well, but by the Church’s terminology, (with procreative simply meaning having sex as though you were trying to have a baby if you could) it does not. If you cannot accept that and will not use Church terminology, you won’t get very far in these discussions. **
Click to expand...
PRECISELY - and thank you.
Now I shall gratefully exit …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top