Birth Control

[kbachler]

Your logic is not like our earth logic. I have seen some pretty bad criticisms of NFP, but this is by far the worst.

Pretty funny. Though its been a while, I have taught logic on the college level, including a history of logic.

If its a bad criticism of NFP, then why not defeat the criticism with an approach other than simply calling the criticism bad?

 

[StTommyMore]

Pretty funny. Though its been a while, I have taught logic on the college level, including a history of logic.

If its a bad criticism of NFP, then why not defeat the criticism with an approach other than simply calling the criticism bad?

I am no expert, but why don’t you start with reading a work by someone who is? I recommend Why Humanae Vitae Was Right by Dr. Janet Smith

 

[Sillara]

Or you could just HAVE BABIES. It’s not the end of the world. My husband and I make love whenever we feel like it. We have the half-dozen children to prove it. And, yes, I’m 36; we have some years left. My fertility isn’t so great anymore, but who cares?

People keep forming the argument as ABC vs NFP. Actually, it’s either have sex (and the babies that come from it), or limit your sex. Other options include mortal sin, so let’s skip those. That’s why NFP is acceptable. You are not separating the sex from the babies; you’re not having the sex.

 

[kbachler]

You logic doesn’t make sense. The couple ALWAYS controls the timing of the act. The Church doesn’t teach WHEN any couple MUST have sex. There is no rule that on cycle day 15 or 20 all couples much engage in the act. Couples have the right to decide when to have sex–it makes no difference if the woman or man is naturally fertile or naturally infertile at the time. The choice to engage in sex is theirs AND knowledge of the fertility of the act doesn’t render the act infertile or change the fact that the couple has a choice to have sex or not. All forms of contraception seek to render the act infertile–that’s it’s goal. NFP does nothing to the act of sex. Each and every act is whole and intact–irregardless of the natural fertility/infertilty of the couple

My logic does make sense. NFP exists to provide family planning. It does that by giving couples the ability to choose sex when the woman is less likely to be fertile. The couple makes that choice (A choice) based on their knowledge and mental state - just as they would with ANY OTHER form of contraception.

With NFP, the choice is based on timing. With other forms the choice may be based upon whether or not to apply a device (for example.) In both cases, there is a choice based on knowledge within the person, of applying something (a device or a delay) to the act. To argue that the act is not impacted by that is fallacious. If the act were not impacted, there would be no reason for NFP to exist.

 

[kbachler]

Or you could just HAVE BABIES. It’s not the end of the world. My husband and I make love whenever we feel like it. We have the half-dozen children to prove it. And, yes, I’m 36; we have some years left. My fertility isn’t so great anymore, but who cares?

People keep forming the argument as ABC vs NFP. Actually, it’s either have sex (and the babies that come from it), or limit your sex. Other options include mortal sin, so let’s skip those. That’s why NFP is acceptable. You are not separating the sex from the babies; you’re not having the sex.

Except of course, when the woman is not fertile, in which case YOU ARE separating the sex from the babies.

Sorry, the argument above is not true.

 

[catharina]

Or you could just HAVE BABIES. It’s not the end of the world. My husband and I make love whenever we feel like it. We have the half-dozen children to prove it. And, yes, I’m 36; we have some years left. My fertility isn’t so great anymore, but who cares?

People keep forming the argument as ABC vs NFP. Actually, it’s either have sex (and the babies that come from it), or limit your sex. Other options include mortal sin, so let’s skip those. That’s why NFP is acceptable. You are not separating the sex from the babies; you’re not having the sex.

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[heart4home]

My logic does make sense. NFP exists to provide family planning. It does that by giving couples the ability to choose sex when the woman is less likely to be fertile. The couple makes that choice (A choice) based on their knowledge and mental state - just as they would with ANY OTHER form of contraception.

With NFP, the choice is based on timing. With other forms the choice may be based upon whether or not to apply a device (for example.) In both cases, there is a choice based on knowledge within the person, of applying something (a device or a delay) to the act. To argue that the act is not impacted by that is fallacious. If the act were not impacted, there would be no reason for NFP to exist.

Round and round and round we go.

I don’t think anybody is denying that the act is impacted, or in this case the lack of the act is impacting the ability to conceive.

So you feel that choosing to NOT have sex, and choosing to use a barrier method(because I assume we can leave the whole hormonal abortion causing types out here) are equal.

Your belief I assume is that the end result is as important as the means.

So let’s look at another example. I can diet and go without food and not gain weight, or I can stuff my face, gorge on food and then vomit it all up and not gain weight. The end result may be the same, but the means to get there will be different.

You may say in my alternative example that the person’s physical health will be effected. It will have negative consequences on their overall health.

Those of us who believe in NFP would argue that those who use ABC will negatively effect their spiritual health and their choice will have negative consequences on the overall health of their marriage and salvation.

If you feel the act of self denial for a time or for the sake of another is unnatural, bad or wrong then it’s probably going to be pretty hard to ever convince you of NFP as being natural and good.

 

[jilly4ski]

My logic does make sense. NFP exists to provide family planning. It does that by giving couples the ability to choose sex when the woman is less likely to be fertile. The couple makes that choice (A choice) based on their knowledge and mental state - just as they would with ANY OTHER form of contraception.

With NFP, the choice is based on timing. With other forms the choice may be based upon whether or not to apply a device (for example.) In both cases, there is a choice based on knowledge within the person, of applying something (a device or a delay) to the act. To argue that the act is not impacted by that is fallacious. If the act were not impacted, there would be no reason for NFP to exist.

You are seriously confused. With NFP the choice isn’t timing. We do not control whether we are fertile or not (unless we use ABC and then we only choose infertility). The choice is whether or not to engage in the marital act. All couples do this, no matter if they are using NFP, ABC, or nothing at all.

There are a variety of factors that go into choosing marital relations the NFP couple just takes into account the additional factors whether they are fertile or not, and whether they can/want to have a child at that time. Whereas a couple using ABC does not consider their fertility (beyond the fact the their ABC is working to make them infertile), or whether they can have a baby now (though they should considering the failure rates of ABC).

If NFP and ABC are the same then why don’t people just use NFP?

 

[heart4home]

Except of course, when the woman is not fertile, in which case YOU ARE separating the sex from the babies.

Sorry, the argument above is not true.

She probably should have said and the babies that MAY come from it. If they don’t come, they don’t come.

Procreative and Unitive. If you come together you are willing to except what results. If nature has caused you to not be fertile than that is the way it is.

If you don’t want to be procreative and unitive, than don’t have sex. Of course only God will get to decide if your reasons were grave come your judgement day.

I don’t think this is that hard to understand. Marital relations were designed for reasons of unity that brings both physical and emotional pleasure. But it also comes with a possible price/blessing if you should happen to be fertile. A child.

If you can not except that price than you have the choice of forgoing the pleasure for the time being.

If you are infertile, it’s not like you are saying “NO” don’t give me a child, you physically just can’t have one. If you can’t see the difference well then I don’t know what else to say.

 

[Sillara]

She probably should have said and the babies that MAY come from it. If they don’t come, they don’t come.

Yes, I meant that, and I ought to have phrased it so. After all, my husband and I have made love thousands of times. We have only six children.

 

[EeyoresButerfly]

All hormonal birth control has a possibility of being abortive, so we are looking at only “barrier” methods of birth control in this discussion.

Natural Family Planning (The 4 main methods) are more reliable in avoiding pregnancy than any artificial birth control at all.

I recommend reading “Good news about sex and marriage” by Christopher West.

I’m not going to read through the whole thread, but I would like to second reading this book. I was married last month, and we had to go to a seminar that used his books and videos. The only thing we didn’t like is that he was a bit sensationalist and used a lot of false statistics to try to rile people up. That was a turn off for me. The advice itself is good, but the presentation is lacking.

I did use a birth control pill for a couple of months before getting married in order to try to regulate some problems with my cylce. I ended up going off of it not just because of my concerns about what would happen after marriage, but also because of concerns about side effects. I knew several women who had blood clotting problems while on it.

We are currently using Creighton. I can’t tell you how super effective or not it is as we have only been married a month, but I like how in tune I am becoming with my body. I have several health conditions that appear to be affected to an extent by my cycle, so I like the idea that I can p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly what is going on with my body.

 

[Em_in_FL]

And the knowledge that man has to use the barrier in time, was also created by God. Just as the knowledge to apply a barrier in space was created by God. IT WAS ALL created by God.

Sorry, that argument doesn’t fly. The whole “natural/unnatural” argument just doesn’t make sense.

Once again, it has NOTHING to do with being natural.
NFP is the ONLY method that does not disassociate the unitive from the procreative aspects of marital relations.

Except of course, when the woman is not fertile, in which case YOU ARE separating the sex from the babies.

Sorry, the argument above is not true.

Ah, once again a confusion of definitions.
“Separating the sex from the babies”… implies that you assume “procreative” sex must ALWAYS assume fertility.
This is NOT true. Fertility has no impact on whether the relations are procreative. They are not the same thing.
Procreative means - done in the way that could conceive, if fertility were present.
So, by God’s design, much of the time during the woman’s fertility cycle IS “sex without babies”… but that is STILL procreative.

 

[HouseArrest]

Except of course, when the woman is not fertile, in which case YOU ARE separating the sex from the babies.

Sorry, the argument above is not true.

So then I have to restrict relations to times when I am fertile, or else I am separating the sex from the babies. That would be what you call a time barrier.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Once again, it has NOTHING to do with being natural.
NFP is the ONLY method that does not disassociate the unitive from the procreative aspects of marital relations.

Ah, once again a confusion of definitions.
“Separating the sex from the babies”… implies that you assume “procreative” sex must ALWAYS assume fertility.
This is NOT true. Fertility has no impact on whether the relations are procreative. They are not the same thing.Procreative means - done in the way that could conceive, if fertility were present.
So, by God’s design, much of the time during the woman’s fertility cycle IS “sex without babies”… but that is STILL procreative.

Adding to Em’s response. The Church does not teach that procreative must assume fertility. If that were true, infertile couples would need to refrain from sex, and post menopausal women would need to refrain.

Why is contraception used? It’s used in order to have relations by rendering sterile the fertility that would otherwise be there.:

 

[Jennifer_J]

My logic does make sense. NFP exists to provide family planning. It does that by giving couples the ability to choose sex when the woman is less likely to be fertile. The couple makes that choice (A choice) based on their knowledge and mental state - just as they would with ANY OTHER form of contraception.

With NFP, the choice is based on timing. With other forms the choice may be based upon whether or not to apply a device (for example.) In both cases, there is a choice based on knowledge within the person, of applying something (a device or a delay) to the act. To argue that the act is not impacted by that is fallacious. If the act were not impacted, there would be no reason for NFP to exist.

Family planning is licit. Couples are free to abstain totally or periodically abstain. This is licit family planning–which the Church is fine with. NFP is knowledge of the fertility cycle and overall health of a woman. The choice of using the knowledge of fertility awareness doesn’t interfere with any act of sex–the act isn’t impacted. The sex is procreative (not necessarily fertile) and unitive because the act isn’t RENDERED sterile by contraceptives or contraceptive acts. With fertility awareness there is either an act that is licit or there is no act–that is the couples choice, which is always the couples choice whether they have knowledge of their fertility or not. The knowledge doesn’t change the licitness of the ACT. There is no Church teaching that says if you know you are fertile you must have sex or if you know you are infertile you must not have sex.

 

[kbachler]

Round and round and round we go.

I don’t think anybody is denying that the act is impacted, or in this case the lack of the act is impacting the ability to conceive.

So you feel that choosing to NOT have sex, and choosing to use a barrier method(because I assume we can leave the whole hormonal abortion causing types out here) are equal.

Your belief I assume is that the end result is as important as the means.

So let’s look at another example. I can diet and go without food and not gain weight, or I can stuff my face, gorge on food and then vomit it all up and not gain weight. The end result may be the same, but the means to get there will be different.

You may say in my alternative example that the person’s physical health will be effected. It will have negative consequences on their overall health.

Those of us who believe in NFP would argue that those who use ABC will negatively effect their spiritual health and their choice will have negative consequences on the overall health of their marriage and salvation.

If you feel the act of self denial for a time or for the sake of another is unnatural, bad or wrong then it’s probably going to be pretty hard to ever convince you of NFP as being natural and good.

I appreciate your good post.

A large number of people in this forum deny that the act is impacted by NFP. That’s why I frequently make the point.

You are not correct in that I assume that the end result is as important as the means.

I do think it is important to compare the means, and see if there is any significant difference in one means versus another.

In the example you gave above - of a dieter versus a bulimic, there is, of course, a significant difference.

In comparing NFP to a barrier method contraceptive, I have yet to have a poster offer a significant difference. Several reasons have been offered, but a critical examination of those reasons (like the reason that a barrier method impacts the sex act but NFP does not) shows that the reasons stated so far are not, in fact the case. (For example, BOTH NFP and barrier methods impact the sex act, both for example, impact unity, but in different ways.)

I’m simply looking for a reasonable, Biblically-based argument that NFP is right, and other contraceptive methods are not. I have yet to see this argument presented. Assuming we ignore (for purposes of discussion) whether all hormonal methods show any difference in implantation versus the likelihood of implantation sans any method, I fail to see a moral difference between NFP and any other form of contraception. They exist for the same reason - family planning. They impact the sex act (in some cases perhaps losing quality, in other cases quantity - but I fail to see how that’s a moral issue.) There doesn’t seem to be any reliable Biblical aspect supporting either approach - which is significant since both forms have existed prior to the time of Christ. Frankly there’s the issue of accepting a rationalization of the marital sex act from someone who has vowed to never experience either.

I see these issues as major shortcomings in what the Church has offered its people, and that there is a responsibility of the Church to address these questions.

I’m not claiming to be an expert in this area. But I think many Catholics and non-Catholics alike ask these questions - and if the issue is that clear, reasonable, understandable, Biblically based answers should be readily available - shouldn’t they?

 

[spunjalebi]

You’re not going to find that “Biblically-based” argument and support for NFP because there was no such thing as NFP in the Bible. People got married in their teens and were expected to have as many children as possible. NFP was developed because it apparently follows the natural design of the body. I mean, I can get what you’re saying here, as I’ve posed this argument myself in the past but really I do think a lot of people have already posted some good responses. I also personally find the “is it explicit in the Bible” arguments slightly irritating as that seems to be a very “sola scriptura” way of going about things, and as Catholics we value scripture, reason, and tradition in our faith. The word “trinity” isn’t in the Bible either:shrug:

There isn’t any “Biblically-based” argument for the support of interracial marriages, preventing/ending abortion, and stopping gay marriage. Does that mean interracial marriages are wrong, abortion is okay, and gays should also have marriages recognized?

At first I understood the time thing as the barrier but now that I think about it, it’s really not a barrier, considering the fact that people also use NFP to get pregnant. You can’t use the contraceptive pill to get pregnant, the IUD to get pregnant, condoms to get pregnant, or the patch to get pregnant.

 

[kbachler]

The choice of using the knowledge of fertility awareness doesn’t interfere with any act of sex–the act isn’t impacted.

It IS impacted. The timing and frequency of the act IS impacted. I don’t understand why you continue to insist something that is so obviously incorrect? If the timing and frequency were not impacted, NFP would not even exist.

The rationalization of “the couple is free to have sex or not” makes no sense, since this is also true with or without NFP, or with or without any other form of contraception. It’s not a distinguishing factor.

Couple choose NFP for family planning. If they choose NFP, then the point is that they intend to shift the timing of their sex act from the woman’s fertile times to her infertile times.

This IS an impact. This shows that while they are “free” to have sex, they have chosen not to. Thus, decisions are made, things have changed. That IS an impact.

One could just as easily state that a couple is free to not use a condom, or free to use one.

The “licitness” of this is based solely on an interpretive statement defending NFP versus other forms. I am fundamentally questioning the logic of that statement, since the logic provided doesn’t seem to make sense.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m not claiming to be an expert in this area. But I think many Catholics and non-Catholics alike ask these questions - and if the issue is that clear, reasonable, understandable, Biblically based answers should be readily available - shouldn’t they?

I understand what you’re trying to get to.

However, let’s take a step back for a second and re-look at what authority you’re going to base these reasons on. I understand you’re looking for Biblically-based answers. However, the Catholic Church was founded by Christ Himself and He set the CHURCH (leaders - Popes, Bishops, etc) as the *authority *to guide the people. The Bible is the Word of God, but it does not address each and every little moral issue that may arise throughout history. This is why we trust that the Church that Christ established is going to be guided by the Holy Spirit in it’s teachings.

So, while I haven’t researched your question about Biblical references directly, I’m just preempting a lack of response by saying it may not be there. But that doesn’t mean the Church hasn’t been guided by the Holy Spirit in discerning these topics of morality.

 

[spunjalebi]

I also think it would be good to point out that up until the 1930’s, ALL denominations shared the same perspective with the CC regarding contraceptives.