Birth Control

[bslorence]

I hope it’s ok to jump in on this thread at this point even though I’m new to the thread and to CAF. I’ve read the entire thread last and I’d like to thank kbachler for his persistence because it’s really forced me to think. I wonder if I could make an attempt at answering his question. I probably won’t say anything new but maybe I can pull a few ideas together and express them in a slightly new way.

It seems like there are two related but quite distinct moral questions that a couple can ask themselves, that are overlapping somewhat in this thread: the first is: “Is it better for us to attempt to postpone conception this cycle, or should we let come what may?” The second question is: “Does this particular act of sex meet the requirements of morality; i.e., is it ‘truly human’?” (Gaudium et Spes).

In my understanding, the Church proposes that, for sex to be ‘truly human’ it must be performed in a manner that is consistent with all of its purposes. The Church reflects on the reality of sex – on what sex is – and derives from that reflection some particular guidance as to how we ought to approach sex.

Thus, among other things, a couple must engage in sex in a manner that is formally capable of procreation. I would think that this is a binding principle on all married couples, even if they themselves are incapable of procreation (because of pregnancy, infertility, menopause, or whatever) – the point is not so much that the sex needs to make a baby, or that the couple even needs to want a baby, as that it needs to be the kind of sex that could make a baby, because again, when we look at what sex is, we can draw particular conclusions about the form it ought to take when we engage in it.

Or to put it more bluntly: among other things, sex is for making babies. This is clear because the whole oint of sex, on the biological level, is the transmission of sperm in the general direction of an egg. So in order for an act of sex to be morally licit, then among other things it must be performed in a way that transmits sperm in the general direction of an egg – or at least in a way that would transmit sperm in the general direction of an egg if both were present – and the couple must avoid interposing any hindrance to this transmission. In other words, they must allow sex to keep its own form.

Whereas to use ABC is to intend that a particular act of sex be incapable of making babies, i.e., that it be something other than what it is so that it will not achieve one of its intrinsic purposes. To my mind this is the definition of immorality – using something in a way that contradicts its real purpose, as best we can discern that purpose from revelation and from observing the natural world. This sort of active contradiction is morally distinct from using sex for only some of its many purposes, as for example when a couple has sex when the wife is pregnant.

In other words, the act of sex can still be consistent with all of the purposes of sex without achieving all of them. Whereas it becomes inconsistent with at least one of its purposes when the couple formally alters the act or their bodies with the intention of blocking procreation (Pope John Paul II argued that contraceptive sex is also inconsistent with the unitive purpose of sex, but that’s a discussion unto itself.)

I guess what’s at issue, then, is whether a couple who uses NFP also has sex in a manner that is inconsistent with the procreative purpose of sex, at least insofar as they are using NFP to avoid conception (it’s been pointed out, although only briefly, that NFP is also used by couples who are struggling with infertility, so as to order their sex life *toward * conception).

And it’s easy to be distracted here by that other big marriage questions: i.e., “when should we have another baby, if at all?”. But the Church offers only very general guidance on that question and plainly teaches that it’s the responsibility of each married couple to answer this question for themselves – assuming a general acceptance of the basic connection between marriage and children. See in particular Gaudium et Spes paragraphs 50-51: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

Thus there can be no objection to NFP simply on the grounds that it can be used to avoid conception, because it is often morally licit for a married couple to avoid conception, and only God and that couple know when this avoidance is appropriate and when it isn’t.

Meanwhile ever discrete act of sex that the NFP-using couple engages in respects the intrinsic connection between sex and procreation, because the act adopts the form of sex that is capable of procreation.

Altering the timing of sex so as to avoid conception leads us into that other moral question, because the timing of sex, while certainly related to the sex itself, is extrinsic to the act. The discrete act of having sex at at an infertile time cannot possibly be immoral in and of itself, or else we would all be required to have sex only when we knew that conception was likely to result – and well, that’s absurd (I hope I’m not begging the question at this point but I’ve been thinking about this too long to tell, so let me know if it sounds circular).

Thus the immoral act of an NFP-using couple, if any, would not be the sex, it would be the decision to unjustly postpone another conception (assuming they had discerned that there was no appropriate reason to wait, but decided to wait anyway).

 

[Jennifer_J]

This is off the top of my head as I am at work. Check Leviticus, I think chapter 15. If not there, check chapters 11-16 on ritual cleansing.

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9107chap.asp

I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as you would like it to be…

The argument against contraception, specifically coitus interruptus, based on this passage used to be considered straightforward. In recent years, both Protestant and Catholic commentators have downplayed, if not outright rejected, the anti-contraception interpretation of this text. Their argument goes like this: Onan’s sin consisted solely in his abandonment of his familial obligations to his dead brother. Onan performed the act which bears his name because the child which might have resulted would have been counted as his brother’s, rather than his own–something Onan found intolerable.

The difficulty with this argument is that violation of the Levirate law was not a capital offense. If a man didn’t fulfill his obligations to his deceased brother’s wife, she was to take the matter to the elders, who would counsel him and try to persuade him to change his mind. If he persisted, the widow was to “go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!’” (Deut. 25:9).

While such a punishment might be embarrassing, it falls short of the death sentence Onan received for his act. This suggests he sinned not only by violating the Levirate law, but also by the way in which he did so. The kind of act he committed was so despicable that, in the Old Testament context, it was punishable by death.

 

[kbachler]

I hope it’s ok to jump in on this thread at this point even though I’m new to the thread and to CAF. I’ve read the entire thread last and I’d like to thank kbachler for his persistence because it’s really forced me to think. I wonder if I could make an attempt at answering his question. I probably won’t say anything new but maybe I can pull a few ideas together and express them in a slightly new way.

SNIP.

I had to cut the quote in order to reply within the message limit - but kept the initial part of your quote for reference.

Great post, and you raise some good points. Rather than answering everything point by point, let me point out a couple of things to add further thought.

I would contend that there are very few species - humans may be the only one - who realize that sex leads to procreation. At the same time, it can be shown (and in fact modern studies have shown) that the hormones released during sex have much more going on than ONLY procreation. Some hormones help to create intimacy and bonding, for example.

These facts lead to some crucial problems with your argument.

First, it is not uniquely human to procreate with sex. In fact, it is uniquely human to CHOOSE whether or not to procreate with sex. Consequently, if we ask whether sex is “truly human” we should be asking whether the people involved are being truly responsible in their procreation - for it is ONLY lower animals who procreate at random, without choice. If God truly set us apart from the animals, and gave us dominion over the world, then one of the ways in which he has clearly done so is by giving us the choice of whether or not to procreate.

Second, it is clear that sex is not ONLY for making babies, and the the physiologically unifying aspects of sex (and possibly other physiological aspects of sex) are in fact possibly more important (albeit perhaps less apparent.) Thus, when we consider the NFP couple changing the timing of sex, you are correct, and I agree, that one question of morality might be the postponement of a conception, but another aspect might be the withholding of the unifying aspect caused by hormonal release, and a third might be the withholding of other hormonal benefits.

Third, “The discrete act of having sex at at an infertile time cannot possibly be immoral in and of itself, or else we would all be required to have sex only when we knew that conception was likely to result – and well, that’s absurd” I agree. But if the choice of having sex at an infertile time is not immoral, then on what basis is controlling the timing of fertility intrinsically immoral? Would it be immoral to control the bipolar mood-swings of someone?

I think you’ve raised the level of discussion. Thank you.

 

[kbachler]

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9107chap.asp

I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as you would like it to be…

I guess I’m missing your point because the quote you provided seemed to agree 100% with what I was saying. What am I missing?

 

[kbachler]

catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9107chap.asp

I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as you would like it to be…

Keep reading from your same piece:

John Kippley, in Covenant, Christ and Contraception (New York: Alba House, 1970, page 19), explains it this way:

“Onan went through the motions of the life-giving act but refused to accept the consequences. He withdrew in order that the act could carry no reproductive consequences . . . [H]e went through the motions of the Levirate covenant, but he denied the reality of that covenant.”

Onan and Er, his brother, were both wicked in God’s eyes. Er had already been put to death by God for this. Onan was now supposed to step up to the plate, under Jewish law. Had he refused what you quote would apply.

BUT HE ACCEPTED AND THEN CHEATED, multiple times.

And keep in mind, that Onan was to be in the line to David and hence to Christ.

So in other words, he had the warning of what happened to his brother, then he accepted the law and tried to cheat his way out of it.

So yes, as contended, his being put to death had nothing to do with the spilling of seed. It had to do with the fact that he thought he could cheat God out of the law, which he acted as though he had accepted.

It really is, that clear.

 

[kbachler]

What is altered?

The timing and the frequency of the act.

One thing we know today, that we didn’t know even 50 years ago, is that sex is (scientifically) also about physical health and bonding. Certain hormones released during sex are important for intimacy and bonding for example, and possibly for other areas of mental health.

So, changing the timing and frequency of the act for NFP purposes could, in some circumstances, arguably be a sin against ones partner, if ones partner had a particular need for such hormones for their health and bonding in your marriage.

Consequently, NFP does in fact lead to some very important changes. Less apparent perhaps, but important, nonetheless.

 

[Jennifer_J]

The timing and the frequency of the act.

One thing we know today, that we didn’t know even 50 years ago, is that sex is (scientifically) also about physical health and bonding. Certain hormones released during sex are important for intimacy and bonding for example, and possibly for other areas of mental health.

So, changing the timing and frequency of the act for NFP purposes could, in some circumstances, arguably be a sin against ones partner, if ones partner had a particular need for such hormones for their health and bonding in your marriage.

Consequently, NFP does in fact lead to some very important changes. Less apparent perhaps, but important, nonetheless.

I would just like to say you are really reaching. NFP doesn’t remove sex from a marriage, it postpones sex. This has nothing to do with altering any act, because the act isn’t taking place.

 

[bslorence]

I absolutely agree that “family planning” can, and perhaps in some cases must, be a part of responsible parenthood, as well as the proper exercise of man’s stewardship of creation – just as long that planning is achieved by morally licit means, and as long as married couples always retain an attitude of openness to collaborating with God in the creation of new human life.

Interesting point you raise about the potential for the use of NFP to harm a marriage, although here I think there’s yet a third moral question involved; i.e., whether it’s appropriate for a particular couple to abstain from sexual intimacy at a particular time in their marriage. But of course that’s another very personal & circumstantial decision the couple will have to make together.

But if the choice of having sex at an infertile time is not immoral, then on what basis is controlling the timing of fertility intrinsically immoral? Would it be immoral to control the bipolar mood-swings of someone?

The problem with the Pill, I’d say, is not simply that it suppresses fertility (although that may indeed be a problem but it’s not immediately a problem of sexual morality). And of course there are dietary and drug-related ways to “control the timing of fertility” (or at least to attempt such control) so as to make conception more likely. I don’t think these are intrinsically immoral.

The problem is when a woman takes the Pill with the intent of rendering subsequent acts of sex incapable of procreation. It’s both things together – changing something in your body that is intrinsic to sex, AND intending for that change to block procreation.

I’ve heard that there are other uses for the Pill, and I have no idea whether it would be morally acceptable for a married couple to have sex while the wife was taking the Pill for a non-contraceptive purpose – although I’d be inclined to think that it would be OK for much the same reason that it’s perfectly fine to have sex during pregnancy. (Assuming good faith, of course, and a reasonable medical diagnosis by a faithful Catholic doctor, etc. I’ve heard it bandied about that non-Catholic doctors will sometimes jump right to prescribing the Pill for a non-contraceptive purpose without even considering alternatives, because it’s so much assumed in our society now that using ABC is simply a normal part of life. [EDIT] Oh, and my very tentative opinion completely ignores the question of whether the Pill is an abortifacient – which I’ve heard different opinions about [/EDIT]).

 

[kbachler]

I would just like to say you are really reaching. NFP doesn’t remove sex from a marriage, it postpones sex. This has nothing to do with altering any act, because the act isn’t taking place.

This isn’t reaching at all. How can you possibly make this statement: " This has nothing to do with altering any act, because the act isn’t taking place."

How much more altering can you do that 100%?

If someone said to their alcoholic spouse “If you don’t alter your behavior, I’m leaving” and the spouse quit drinking entirely, would that be unacceptable to you because they didn’t alter the act of drinking?

This is what I mean by word games, Jennifer. Your statement above is a word game, nothing more.

To the extent that someone uses NFP to postpone conception, it changes the timing and frequency of sex. If it didn’t, there would be no reason for NFP to exist. It’s that clear.

 

[kbachler]

I absolutely agree that “family planning” can, and perhaps in some cases must, be a part of responsible parenthood, as well as the proper exercise of man’s stewardship of creation – just as long that planning is achieved by morally licit means, and as long as married couples always retain an attitude of openness to collaborating with God in the creation of new human life.

Regarding the abortifacient aspects of the Pill - my understanding is that the reason for the differing opinions is that they are theorized reasons which, while plausible, are highly unlikely to occur, and even if they do occur, are likely to do so at a rate lower than the rate for normal “natural” abortion. So how does one tell if it is? But I could be wrong about that.

Second, how is using any tool, the Pill, or any other device immoral if taken with the idea of rendering subsequent acts of sex incapable of procreation, if the purpose (or a major purpose) of NFP is to provide us the ability to have acts of sex incapable of procreation? Where is the difference?

And I agree with your point on abstention.

As we have learned more about how sex impacts male and female hormones and thought processes the past few years, I’ve begun to wonder if - for lack of a better phrase - inappropriate societally induced limitations on intimacy have had a negative impact on male (and female) psychology in general. There is, perhaps an argument, that encouraging good male-female (marital) interaction - where the female is generally more verbal and intimacy first sex second based and the male less verbal sex first intimacy second based - well - is it possible that if we simply helped people lead healthy lives in these relationships, working on communication and marital sex, that there would be much less of a need for Prozac (pick your drug) in the world?

Short answer - I agree with your comment.

From Romans 10: 1Brethren, my heart’s desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. 2For I testify about them that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. 3For not knowing about God’s righteousness and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
5For Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on law shall live by that righteousness. 6But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: “DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, ‘WHO WILL ASCEND INTO HEAVEN?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THE ABYSS?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” 12For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13for “WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED.”

This does not say that there is no Law, or no sin, but when I read this I certainly have a very difficult time with anyone interfering in the sanctity of a husband/wife relationship to provide them a brand new law about how they can plan their family.

 

[bslorence]

Well, I guess have a hard time reading Romans 1:18-23 (and then verses 24-25!) and not concluding that it’s good and necessary for philosophers and moral theologians to consider, among many other things, how what we know from nature to be true about sex can guide our use of it toward what is ‘truly human’ and thereby gives glory to God.

And I think the Church is doing a pretty good job of leaving the really important questions about sex to the privacy of marriage while identifying some very clear lines that we cross at our own peril. Not to say that the Church’s teachings on this point are perfect but I do believe that they are free of error and deeply prophetic for our times, and will only become richer as the years go by and philosophers and theologians continue to ponder “the things that have been made” within the bosom of the Church.

Second, how is using any tool, the Pill, or any other device immoral if taken with the idea of rendering subsequent acts of sex incapable of procreation, if the purpose (or a major purpose) of NFP is to provide us the ability to have acts of sex incapable of procreation? Where is the difference?

Well I’m not sure I’ll be able to give a more satisfying account of this than that the core method of NFP (i.e., periodic continence) is extrinsic to the act of sex, whereas every method of ABC attempts to change things that are intrinsic to the act.

If you were to ask me why this distinction is morally significant I’d probably have to say “beats me, let’s ask a moral theologian”, but I do trust the Church on this one and I do think that the difference is philosophically significant – I just can’t give you an argument this afternoon as to precisely why that philosophical distinction leads to a moral difference. But since there is a clear distinction there (clear to me, anywhere), I’d be inclined to guess that the moral argument (or at least a moral argument) might hang on it.

To briefly take a different tack, though, I do think that, as a rough and general rule (certainly there are exceptions), couples who are in the habit of using ABC are less likely to generously welcome the gift of life, while the opposite is true of couples who are in the habit of using NFP. This is not a moral judgment as much as an observation of reality based on guesswork educated by statistics and just everyday observation and chit-chat with people while out and about.

If my observation is by-and-large correct, then we can see that disregarding the Church’s teaching while engaging in individual acts of sex will tend to lead (not every time, but by and large) to a disregard for the Church’s larger teaching about marriage & family – i.e., that married couples are called to participate generously in God’s creation of new life, according to their means and circumstances. So at any rate the facts “on the ground” (I hate that phrase, sorry) might indicate that at least the Church’s teaching is internally consistent.

 

[kbachler]

Well I’m not sure I’ll be able to give a more satisfying account of this than that the core method of NFP (i.e., periodic continence) is extrinsic to the act of sex, whereas every method of ABC attempts to change things that are intrinsic to the act.

Perhaps its just too much in my training (math, logic, physics included) but I see the world as a world in time also, so that to me the core method of NFP is just as intrinsic to the act as any ABC attempt.

In the end, they all involve our decision to act on procreation. Whether I act “in time” or “in space” doesn’t matter to me.

P.S. I don’t know if that’s a curse or a blessing. But I choose the latter. Call it NBP - Natural Blessing Planning.

 

[bslorence]

Well I guess we’re at a philosophical impasse, then, because I’m not sure that I’m able to articulate why I think the timing of an act is extrinsic to the act, while the formal manner in which the act is performed, and the intention guiding the act, are intrinsic to it. Thanks for hearing me out, though, and God bless!

[EDIT]My own training is in classical philosophy and the theology of St. Thomas, but it’s been a while and I’m rusty. Sorry I couldn’t be more helpful![/EDIT]

 

[Jennifer_J]

This isn’t reaching at all. How can you possibly make this statement: " This has nothing to do with altering any act, because the act isn’t taking place."

How much more altering can you do that 100%?

If someone said to their alcoholic spouse “If you don’t alter your behavior, I’m leaving” and the spouse quit drinking entirely, would that be unacceptable to you because they didn’t alter the act of drinking?

This is what I mean by word games, Jennifer. Your statement above is a word game, nothing more.

To the extent that someone uses NFP to postpone conception, it changes the timing and frequency of sex. If it didn’t, there would be no reason for NFP to exist. It’s that clear.

That doesn’t hold water. Lots of things change the timing/frequency of sex other than NFP–the timing and fequency of sex is not an issue, because the Church has no teaching on the frequency and timing of sex. Not having sex doesn’t change the physical act of sex when it occurs. Not having sex is not altering the actual physical act. I guess I’m not smart enough to understand your analogy. Contraception physically alters the sex act to be infertile. If a person weren’t having sex, the pill, condoms, diaphrams, and so on would be okay to use (it would be silly, but still)–they aren’t altering the physical body to make an act of sex sterile if no sex is occuring. Because of their effect on the act, they are an immoral means to family planning.

The Church also teaches that total abstinence is okay–why do you think that is? I mean, under your definition that is the ultimate in altering the act.

 

[bslorence]

The Church also teaches that total abstinence is okay–why do you think that is? I mean, under your definition that is the ultimate in altering the act.

Can you clarify what you mean by total abstinence? My understanding is that when you take all of the Church’s teaching on marriage & sexuality as a whole, you’d have to conclude that under normal circumstances it’s not OK for a husband and wife to abstain from sex. Obviously some couples will have good reasons to abstain temporarily or even permanently – perhaps related to health, or any number of reasons I can’t imagine at this point in my life (married five years and under 30).

And I suppose some couples may choose to live in continence for spiritual reasons, as an extraordinary penance, although I’d think something like this should only be done with the explicit approval of a holy pastor.

But as a rule, it seems to me that married people should be having sex with each other, relatively often. It’s kind of part of the definition of marriage.

Ignore me if you didn’t mean anything like what I was thinking you might have meant.

 

[agapewolf]

Actually, my understanding is that the Pill is designed to prevent ovulation, whether it is the older pill or not. It does this by preventing a leutinizing hormone spike, which triggers ovulation.

There is still a very small chance that ovulation can occur. In this case, combination pills also create a barrier that prevent the man’s seed from getting to the egg.

IF in spite of these two steps, somehow ovulation still occurred and the egg were still fertilized, based on the hormones released it is theorized that there are changes in the uterine wall that would make implantation of an embryo highly difficult. (I do not know if there are any studies that give any indication one way or the other whether this reasonable theorization is fact.) However, if this last unlikely phase were to happen, it would be by Church definition abortive. This certainly makes sense on a conservative, “benefit of the doubt” approach. (Which I believe in, BTW.)

Hence, the Pill is frowned upon.

Statistically, I would not be surprised if the possibility of an abortive act under Pill usage is less than the possibility of an abortive act without Pill usage, since the likelihood of pregnancy in the first place is much less.

There are 5-7 septic (chemical) abortions for every surgical abortion. My reference is from the book Fatherless— which sites where he gets it from, I don’t have it handy. This statistic was also stated at the TOB congress.

 

[jilly4ski]

Can you clarify what you mean by total abstinence? My understanding is that when you take all of the Church’s teaching on marriage & sexuality as a whole, you’d have to conclude that under normal circumstances it’s not OK for a husband and wife to abstain from sex. Obviously some couples will have good reasons to abstain temporarily or even permanently – perhaps related to health, or any number of reasons I can’t imagine at this point in my life (married five years and under 30).

And I suppose some couples may choose to live in continence for spiritual reasons, as an extraordinary penance, although I’d think something like this should only be done with the explicit approval of a holy pastor.

But as a rule, it seems to me that married people should be having sex with each other, relatively often. It’s kind of part of the definition of marriage.

Ignore me if you didn’t mean anything like what I was thinking you might have meant.

The Church teaches that if there is a grave/serious/just reason to not have a child a married couple can use total abstinence or periodic abstinence to that purpose. Total abstinence would be no sex until the couple could accept a child.

I would too like an answer to Jennifer’s question.

Originally Posted by Jennifer J View Post
The Church also teaches that total abstinence is okay–why do you think that is? I mean, under your definition that is the ultimate in altering the act.

And I would like to post one of my own.
If NFP and ABC are the same, then why don’t people just use NFP?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

The Church teaches that if there is a grave/serious/just reason to not have a child a married couple can use total abstinence or periodic abstinence to that purpose.

I would too like an answer to Jennifer’s question.

And I would like to post one of my own.
If NFP and ABC are the same, then why don’t people just use NFP?/QUOTE]

I don’t get it either.

 

[HouseArrest]

The above statement is true irrespective of NFP. It is not a differentiator from all other forms of contraception. Therefore, to make the statement above is really to say nothing.

The point is that for NFP to have any meaning - any reason to exist - to provide a means for family planning, the couple MUST still CHOOSE to change the act in terms of timing and frequency.

THAT is inescapable.

One is free to choose NOT to have sex when the woman is infertile. Fine. But that doesn’t change the MEANING OF NFP. One is also free to choose to use (or not use) a condom when the woman is infertile. Does that change the meaning of a condom??

You didn’t answer the question. You asserted that changing the timing of sex was rendering the act infertile. I then asked if every time the timing of sex was changed was the couple creating a barrier, and rendering the act infertile. If I am doing anything other than having sex, I am family planning, correct? So by your definition of the time barrier, the flu is the same as a condom.

So you see the difference? I assert that every time a couple uses a condom or the Pill they are creating a barrier. Do you agree that every time I postpone sex I am creating a barrier?

 

[choose_to_love]

@kbachler

1. Onan

I thought you might mean the Leviticus chapter (15) you mentioned. I do not see how one can definitively say that chapter applies to contraception. It appears to apply to any emission of semen, whether in lawful intercourse or not. I am suggesting that contraceptive emissions would be a particular subset not dealt with in the chapter. I also suggest that the thought of it applying to coitus interruptus is nowhere to be found in that chapter.

To me, one cannot ignore the existence of the public humiliation remedy for a brother who shirks the law. That is the punishment, not the loss of life. It would also seem to be more in line with the ritual washings level of consequence, if you will, rather than death.

How else could he have “cheated” the law? Killing any babies? Not actually having intercourse & so refusing to raise an heir? Now that would be an interesting position vis-a-vis periodic continence, no? But the fact is, it is not that he refused to raise an heir, it is how he did it. It seems to me that option a, killiing any babies conceived, would be obviously wrong to everyone (at least for the Hebrews, not so much for their contemporaries). Option b, shamming the marrigage but not engaging in intercourse, would be so foreign to the culture as to be extremely remote, would be more work for no benefit to the surviving brother, and in any event would still provide some support for the widow, although, not, as noted, provide for a means of support in her later years. Therefore, I think the manner of the cheating of the covenant is part and parcel of the cheating or rejectiing of the covenant such that the two are really inseparable as the story is recounted.

“Here ends the detour into biblical reasons contra contraception. We now return to your regularly scheduled thread ”

1. As other posters have pointed out, I think, you have not addressed how the act of postponing intercourse causes, by the action of waiting and not through another mechanism, the subesquent act to be sterile. I submit that it does not. Hence there is no intentional alteration of the marital act.

Changing the timing and perhaps frequency of sex is not the same as changing the act. The act of intercourse remains the same. In the case of ABC, the couple is deliberately and by their own action rendering the act sterile. The NFP couple does not separate the unitive from the procreative parts of the act. They work with the body’s cycles, not against it. As this is how God created us, with both parts inseparably intertwined, it is licit to use periodic continence.