Birth Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter kdragonfly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I disagree. If you are using ABSTINENCE you are saying no to the whole act. With NFP you are taking the sex, but at a different time.
NFP is periodic abstinence, which is permitted. It is permitted for more than spacing children, it is permitted for when I have the flu, too. So is having the flu the same as ABC?

The whole act is referring to one encounter between husband and wife. With NFP I am taking the sex, as it was designed, at whatever time I want to. I can take it today, as it was designed, or tomorrow, as it was designed, but I can’t take half of it today (use ABC) and half again tomorrow (use ABC).
 
If grandma dies, what does it matter if she dies naturally or we kill her? “What does it matter what method you use?”

If we need money, what does matter if we rob a bank or earn it in a job. “What does it matter what method you use?”

“In the end they are just two tools used to achieve the same goal.”


The end does not justify the means.
That is a poor analogy. Robbing a bank and killing grandma are immoral as defined by the 10 commandments (not to mention illegal). Birth control in any form was never stated as being immoral by God or Jesus in the Bible.
 
That is a poor analogy. Robbing a bank and killing grandma are immoral as defined by the 10 commandments (not to mention illegal). Birth control in any form was never stated as being immoral by God or Jesus in the Bible.
No, it is not a poor analogy. The analogy is perfect in that is illustrates that the end don’t justify the means.

There were 2 incorrect statements made that these analogies proved wrong.

“What does it matter what method you use?”

“In the end they are just two tools used to achieve the same goal.”
 
That is a poor analogy. Robbing a bank and killing grandma are immoral as defined by the 10 commandments (not to mention illegal). Birth control in any form was never stated as being immoral by God or Jesus in the Bible.
But artificial birth control is fundamentally against the 6th commandment - it makes marital relations into something cheap that resembles adultery when the unitive and procreative aspects are separated.
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml

Also, we are not a Sola Scriptura faith… much of what we believe is passed down through the tradition of the church.
 
I assume you meant “God intended the act to take place during the woman’s fertile time.”???
Ummm… no. It’s intended to take place whenever the couple desires. 😊

As the pp mentioned… the ends don’t justify the means.
NFP does not disassociate the procreative (check your definitions) and unitive aspects of marital intimacy. ABC always does. This is why they are different.

Scarran - it seems as though you may have not read through the entire thread as you are coming into this discussion a little late. Most of these points have already been made.
Sure, but the fertile time is the time when the woman is most likely to get pregnant and is typically most interested in intercourse. I’m not saying it is the only time to have intercourse, just the most natural.

Yes but God never said it was wrong to disassociate the two.

I’m still trying to catch up!
 
But artificial birth control is fundamentally against the 6th commandment - it makes marital relations into something cheap that resembles adultery when the unitive and procreative aspects are separated.
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml

Also, we are not a Sola Scriptura faith… much of what we believe is passed down through the tradition of the church.
According to The Church, not God. Sorry I don’t worship The Church.
 
No, it is not a poor analogy. The analogy is perfect in that is illustrates that the end don’t justify the means.

There were 2 incorrect statements made that these analogies proved wrong.

“What does it matter what method you use?”

“In the end they are just two tools used to achieve the same goal.”
If both methods are not unacceptable in the eyes of God according to the Bible, then what difference does it make?
 
NFP is periodic abstinence, which is permitted. It is permitted for more than spacing children, it is permitted for when I have the flu, too. So is having the flu the same as ABC?

The whole act is referring to one encounter between husband and wife. With NFP I am taking the sex, as it was designed, at whatever time I want to. I can take it today, as it was designed, or tomorrow, as it was designed, but I can’t take half of it today (use ABC) and half again tomorrow (use ABC).
Permitted by who? The Church or God? God never said birth control was wrong, only the Church does.

With NFP you are interuppting the design by avoiding the fertile time. If you were doing nothing special, NFP wouldn’t exist as stated earler in this thread.
 
From the Catechism link I posted:
2363
The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
Code:
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
2368
A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
Code:
    When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369
"By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157
2370
Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159
Code:
    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
2371
"Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny."161
2372
The state has a responsibility for its citizens’ well-being. In this capacity it is legitimate for it to intervene to orient the demography of the population. This can be done by means of objective and respectful information, but certainly not by authoritarian, coercive measures. The state may not legitimately usurp the initiative of spouses, who have the primary responsibility for the procreation and education of their children.162 In this area, it is not authorized to employ means contrary to the moral law.
 
If both methods are not unacceptable in the eyes of God according to the Bible, then what difference does it make?
You again are missing the point.

I am using an analogy to discuss a means of logic. There are arguments made that means justifies intent. That if there is the same goal it doesn’t matter how it is achieved.

My analogies obviously prove that wrong. It DOES matter how goals are achieved. The process is just as important as the goal, because one can be moral while the other isn’t.

When arguing, stick the point. There are conclusions being drawn from a false premise. I am proving that premise wrong, therefore the conclusion cannot be drawn from it.
 
Christ Himself established a church. He sent His Holy Spirit to guide and lead this church and said He would always be with us.
This church has instructed us in many aspects on various aspects of morality… including specifically this very topic.
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.shtml
Yes but Jesus never spoke specifically about birth control, which existed long before Jesus. The Church does not have the autority to invent sins in my opinion.
 
Yes but Jesus never spoke specifically about birth control, which existed long before Jesus. The Church does not have the autority to invent sins in my opinion.
Matthew 16:
“Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven”
 
Yes but Jesus never spoke specifically about birth control, which existed long before Jesus. The Church does not have the autority to invent sins in my opinion.
Jesus also never spoke specifically about abortion… or embryonic stem cells… or pornography…
 
Jesus also never spoke specifically about abortion… or embryonic stem cells… or pornography…
For ponography, he spoke specifically against this by referring to adultry and looking and another lustfully. To my knowledge embryonic stem cell research and abortion didn’t exist in the time of Jesus. Sexuality on the other hand has been around since the beginning of mankind, and birth control since ancient Eygpt.
 
For ponography, he spoke specifically against this by referring to adultry and looking and another lustfully. To my knowledge embryonic stem cell research and abortion didn’t exist in the time of Jesus. Sexuality on the other hand has been around since the beginning of mankind, and birth control since ancient Eygpt.
From Wikipedia:
The first recorded evidence of induced abortion, is from the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus in 1550 BC.[3] A Chinese record documents the number of royal concubines who had abortions in China between the years 500 and 515 BC.[4] According to Chinese folklore, the legendary Emperor Shennong prescribed the use of mercury to induce abortions nearly 5000 years ago.[5] Many of the methods employed in early and primitive cultures were non-surgical. Physical activities like strenuous labor, climbing, paddling, weightlifting, or diving were a common technique. Others included the use of irritant leaves, fasting, bloodletting, pouring hot water onto the abdomen, and lying on a heated coconut shell.[6] In primitive cultures, techniques developed through observation, adaptation of obstetrical methods, and transculturation.[7] Archaeological discoveries indicate early surgical attempts at the extraction of a fetus; however, such methods are not believed to have been common, given the infrequency with which they are mentioned in ancient medical texts.
So, it does sound like abortion was known by the time of Jesus, even in the middle east.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top