Birth Control

[PassingThru]

You’re right… when we abstain at the time of desiring sex it is sacrificial.
But when it comes to the morality of the act - it’s ALL or nothing. You can’t take some of it and leave the rest behind. It’s TOTAL self giving, or sacrificial abstinence.

Oh, come on now. Really?

See, this is how bad it gets.

Vico made is very straight forward statement about sex being “apt to produce babys” and that turned into “you must ejaculate inside your wife”. Fine.

Now, you say marital relations must be TOTAL self giving. We point out that it is impossible for a couple practicing NFP to be TOTALLY self giving, and we get this response about it being sacrificial, which is some sort of “special case scenario”, and now we have morally self giving totally, mixed in with a sacrificial “get out of jail free” card?

You just said, its all or nothing. Either you are TOTALLY self giving or you are NOT. Period.

Again, this falls under our entire point, which is that the logical reason for the division is not present.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I don’t understand this???

NFP is used on a case by case basis… each dependent on that particular moment in time that you desire to engage or not…

I agree, It isn’t like we go live in separate homes when I’m fertile. We still desire each other.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Oh, come on now. Really?

See, this is how bad it gets.

Vico made is very straight forward statement about sex being “apt to produce babys” and that turned into “you must ejaculate inside your wife”. Fine.

Now, you say marital relations must be TOTAL self giving. We point out that it is impossible for a couple practicing NFP to be TOTALLY self giving, and we get this response about it being sacrificial, which is some sort of “special case scenario”, and now we have morally self giving totally, mixed in with a sacrificial “get out of jail free” card?

You just said, its all or nothing. Either you are TOTALLY self giving or you are NOT. Period.

Again, this falls under our entire point, which is that the logical reason for the division is not present.

Then we can only be intimate on fertile days, and stop intimacy at menopause.

 

[Em_in_FL]

We point out that it is impossible for a couple practicing NFP to be TOTALLY self giving, and we get this response about it being sacrificial, which is some sort of “special case scenario”, and now we have morally self giving totally, mixed in with a sacrificial “get out of jail free” card?

You just said, its all or nothing. Either you are TOTALLY self giving or you are NOT. Period.

Again, this falls under our entire point, which is that the logical reason for the division is not present.

HOW is it impossible for a couple practicing NFP to be totally self-giving?

“Total” means each individual act that occurs. If it doesn’t occur, it doesn’t occur.
“Total” doesn’t mean that the couple is required to have sex every day, every hour, or on some time schedule. It says that each act must be completed with the husband finishing inside the wife in a way (not time, not fertility… WAY) that is “apt to produce children”.

 

[PassingThru]

I didn’t say that in the least.

Let me rephrase…
Given that a couple decides to engage in the act and not abstain - separating the unitive from the procreative during that act is immoral. It’s all or nothing. Total self-giving or abstaining.

Can the unitive and procreative be separeted at a time NOT associated with the act? (Meaning, is it possible for it to happen, not is it right/wrong) Simple question…

 

[Em_in_FL]

Can the unitive and procreative be separeted at a time NOT associated with the act? (Meaning, is it possible for it to happen, not is it right/wrong) Simple question…

These terms - unitive and procreative - are referring to the “aspects of marital sexuality”.
I’m not sure I understand your question.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Can the unitive and procreative be separeted at a time NOT associated with the act? (Meaning, is it possible for it to happen, not is it right/wrong) Simple question…

Do you mean something like IVF, where you have procreative without the unitive?

 

[PassingThru]

HOW is it impossible for a couple practicing NFP to be totally self-giving?

“Total” means each individual act that occurs. If it doesn’t occur, it doesn’t occur.
“Total” doesn’t mean that the couple is required to have sex every day, every hour, or on some time schedule. It says that each act must be completed with the husband finishing inside the wife in a way (not time, not fertility… WAY) that is “apt to produce children”.

See, now you are playing the either/or. No one proposed that you had to have sex all the time. I said when they wanted or desired sex. That would be TOTAL self giving, to me.

You just defined it to be only during the act, and ignored what may or may not cause them to have sex in the first place. Well, that is convenient, but not how I or most people would define it, I think.

Look above, see how you defined TOTAL in a restrictive way, and just assumed that was that? I said TOTAL to be total. No restrictions, period. Which, any logical person would also assume… sigh.

With the definition game, there is no winner.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Do you mean something like IVF, where you have procreative without the unitive?

Maybe, but even then it’s a misuse of vocabulary…

Procreative is a adjective - it’s *descriptive *of a thing (the act of sex)…

With IVF - procreation is taking place - it’s a noun, but there’s no act to describe.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Maybe, but even then it’s a misuse of vocabulary…

Procreative is a adjective - it’s *descriptive *of a thing (the act of sex)…

With IVF - procreation is taking place - it’s a noun, but there’s no act to describe.

I see your point…with IVF you procreate without the sex act…not the way God intended.

 

[PassingThru]

These terms - unitive and procreative - are referring to the “aspects of marital sexuality”.
I’m not sure I understand your question.

I think you dont want to commit an answer.

I wont even attempt to guess how you will define “unitive and procreative” at the end of the day. However you see a condom violating/dividing “unitive and procreative” is how I am defining it.

So, can you divide the two at a time outside the act of sex. Easy question.

 

[Em_in_FL]

See, now you are playing the either/or. No one proposed that you had to have sex all the time. I said when they wanted or desired sex. That would be TOTAL self giving, to me.

You just defined it to be only during the act, and ignored what may or may not cause them to have sex in the first place. Well, that is convenient, but not how I or most people would define it, I think.

Look above, see how you defined TOTAL in a restrictive way, and just assumed that was that? I said TOTAL to be total. No restrictions, period. Which, any logical person would also assume… sigh.

With the definition game, there is no winner.

You’re still not seeing it in it’s totality…
You DESIRE sex, but don’t DESIRE the fact that your wife is fertile at that moment. You don’t DESIRE her TOTALLY. You only DESIRE the unitive. You are throwing the procreative design back in God’s face.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I think you dont want to commit an answer.

I wont even attempt to guess how you will define “unitive and procreative” at the end of the day. However you see a condom violating/dividing “unitive and procreative” is how I am defining it.

So, can you divide the two at a time outside the act of sex. Easy question.

I’m quoting the Catechism, not making this up.

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

Can I divide the unitive aspect of marital sexuality from the procreative aspect of marital sexuality outside the act of sex?
I really don’t understand what you’re getting at… sorry.

 

[PassingThru]

You’re still not seeing it in it’s totality…
You DESIRE sex, but don’t DESIRE the fact that your wife is fertile at that moment. You don’t DESIRE her TOTALLY. You only DESIRE the unitive. You are throwing the procreative design back in God’s face.

What?

Who said I dont desire the fertility?

I am saying Total would be regardless of fertility, good and bad.

What are you talking about? I think you are swinging now.

I said TOTAL to me is without restrictions. Period. You said only during an act of sex, which is more restrictive definition. Which is a logic question.

Off tracks.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Passing thru…I might be wrong, but “unitive and procreative” are terms are not used in Humane Vitae, so they could be confusing

I’ll post what Humanae Vitae states:

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process./

 

[Em_in_FL]

What?

Who said I dont desire the fertility?

I am saying Total would be regardless of fertility, good and bad.

What are you talking about? I think you are swinging now.

I said TOTAL to me is without restrictions. Period. You said only during an act of sex, which is more restrictive definition. Which is a logic question.

Off tracks.

Do you read ANY of the links I post???

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

When couples, by means of recourse to contraception, separate these two meanings that God the Creator has inscribed in the being of man and woman and in the dynamism of their sexual communion, they act as “arbiters” of the divine plan and they “manipulate” and degrade human sexuality-and with it themselves and their married partner-by altering its value of “total” self-giving. 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.

When, instead, by means of recourse to periods of infertility, the couple respect the inseparable connection between the unitive and procreative meanings of human sexuality, they are acting as “ministers” of God’s plan and they “benefit from” their sexuality according to the original dynamism of “total” selfgiving, without manipulation or alteration.(90)

In the light of the experience of many couples and of the data provided by the different human sciences, theological reflection is able to perceive and is called to study further the difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle: it is a difference which is much wider and deeper than is usually thought, one which involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. The choice of the natural rhythms involves accepting the cycle of the person, that is the woman, and thereby accepting dialogue, reciprocal respect, shared responsibility and self- control. To accept the cycle and to enter into dialogue means to recognize both the spiritual and corporal character of conjugal communion and to live personal love with its requirement of fidelity. In this context the couple comes to experience how conjugal communion is enriched with those values of tenderness and affection which constitute the inner soul of human sexuality, in its physical dimension also. In this way sexuality is respected and promoted in its truly and fully human dimension, and is never “used” as an “object” that, by breaking the personal unity of soul and body, strikes at God’s creation itself at the level of the deepest interaction of nature and person.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Passing thru…I might be wrong, but “unitive and procreative” are terms are not used in Humane Vitae, so they could be confusing

Sure they are!
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Union and Procreation

1. This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.

The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Sure they are!
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

OK sorry…

 

[Em_in_FL]

OK sorry…

No worries… that’s another part of the quote I meant to point out!

 

[Anna1345]

First, please don’t start launching anger at me. I’d prefer if you would at least take the time to ask a question before getting angry,** to make certain that you understand what I am saying.**

I completely understand what you are saying. And yes, you have completely missed my point. Several times.

Second, I have, MANY, MANY, MANY times in this thread stated that for ABC we are speaking primarily of barrier ABC, or IF we are discussing other forms, then we are, for purposes of discussion assuming that the other forms do not cause abortion.

Third, I REALLY DON’T see any LOGICAL difference between a barrier method, for example, and NFP. If a couple has birth control knowledge - i.e. what it does and how to use it - that factor is basically the same irrespective of form. If the couple uses that knowledge to avoid pregnancy, then the intent is the same. Using NFP in this way or ABC BOTH involve the use of a barrier, and in either case the sperm is kept from fertilizing an egg.

I mean really What part of NATURAL and PLANNING in regards to God’s ultimate design is unclear??? And for a huge FYI, most women I know use NFP to HAVE children. When you have actually gone through trying to get pregnant or trying to wait to get pregnant, then maybe I’ll consider more your nitpicking of definitions and “logic”

There are beneficial hormonal aspects (that generally apply to the unitive asects of the marital act) that are negatively impacted by changing the timing and frequency of the Act, so it is possible to reasonably argue that NFP is LESS MORAL than ABC. ** These aspects are less dependent upon the quality of the act and more dependent on the frequency, where ABC appears to allow greater frequency with better birth control results.**

you’re joking right? Really? You really, truly and honestly believe with your whole heart that abstaining for a period of (max) 72 hours is going to effect a marriage long term b/c there can’t be the correct kind of union??? If that were true I would have been divorced a LONG LONG time ago seeing as my husband is deployed more then he is home. We just got off recruiting duty for 3 years and it was the longest consecutive time in our marriage he had been home. for the other 75% of our marriage he is usually gone about 5 months or more out of each year. And let me tell ya, our union is just fine and our marriage is strong.

Well, I have to correct you again, because I understood your point in its entirety. ** I just think that your argument is completely wrong. The purpose IS the same. I**f the purpose wasn’t to prevent pregnancy, NFP+abstinence WOULD NOT EXIST. People wouldn’t do it. They do it because its the alternative they have.

Just b/c you don’t like the answer that is given doesn’t make it any less valid. Either believe it, or don’t. Either beleive that God wants us to do what is natural (ie not man made in order to not have children) or don’t. It’s very simple. The whole argument of picking at straws is an attempt to discredit something in which one doesn’t beleive. If you are not going to beleive in it, fine.

Therefore, whn people use NFP, THEY ARE concretely trying to interfere wih God’s design - IF that is the argument you use for BC, then the same argument MUST LOGICALLY be made about NFP.

When you use NFP you ARE physically preventing the sperm from reaching the egg by controlling the timing out of the act.

I guess you’ve never heard of women getting pregnant outside of that 48 hour window? Really? No, it would only be preventing the sperm from getting to the egg IF we removed one of two things – the egg or the sperm (both of which is done by BC). There is nothing to say that a woman won’t ovulate on cd 15, 3, 29, or any other number. We, as mere humans, can try to time things, but timing is man made, figuring out cycles is man made, etc. However what our bodies ACTUALLY do is out of our control – unless we put something IN our bodies to control it.

Then quit calling me names, and demonstrate the logical absurdiy. So far, after many pages, no one has. If its logically absurd, it should be very simple to construct a logical proof to demonstrate the absurdity.

And I didn’t call you names. If I recall correctly you were the one I was quoting. Perhaps if you quit “having to correct” everybody and their mother, you might actually hear what we are saying…