Birth Control

[Vico]

Um, sorry. The above statement is false. The deductive reasoning cannot be “false in its assumptions.” Logic works, because it works, it is a tool. If the assumptions are true, then then the conclusion true. PERIOD.

If there is a question about the truthfulness of an assumption, address it. If there is a question about the logical form of an argument, address it. But please, do not make false assertions such as the above.

An ARGUMENT can be false if the assumptions are false, but DEDUCTIVE LOGIC is not so.

The assumption might not be true is what I am saying, so even when the argument is valid the argument may not be sound. (And induction may be false even when premises are true.)

 

[Em_in_FL]

Look. If I said the following:

*NFP is a moral negative because it degrades the very essence of sexual union. It turns it into something entirely carnal… something that is driven purely by lust.

A couple who uses NFP will never give second thought to those “serious/well-grounded/grave” reasons with respect to the design of God. They don’t analyze the gift of the marital covenant as something that is “ordered toward procreation”. They desire the carnal aspects of unity and tear apart the design of God. It makes sex into a carnival ride excused by “natural urges”. There is no practice of self-control or self-denial or sacrifice.*

Honestly, what would you say? Would you reject it? Would you consider it fact, or opinion?

Just to make it easier, lets say this reads exactly as the Lutheran Church officially believes. Would that someone make you less interested in having my position supported with something else?

Try and look at this with an attempt and neutrality. If you can not, then you can not have an open discussion.

There’s no opinion involved here. NFP by it’s very NATURE cannot be anything you just mentioned.
It has nothing to do with where the teaching came from. It has to do with what the teaching is.
There’s no opinion involved… we’re discussing facts and teachings, not “thoughts and opinions” on them…

And apparently I’m not “done”…

 

[kbachler]

The assumption might not be true is what I am saying, so even when the argument is valid the argument may not be sound. (And induction may be false even when premises are true.)

It isn’t what you were saying. That’s the point. What you say above is correct. What you said before was false. Your statement above should be. "Thank you. I was in error. What I meant to say was “The assumption might not be true, so even when the argument is valid the argument may not be sound. (And induction may be false even when premises are true.)”

Please, argue logically, stop using circular arguments, and say what you mean.

Thank you.

 

[PassingThru]

Again, the couple is not removing anything from the act. The act is the act. The cycle is the cycle. A couple is free to choose when to engage in the act and for just/serious reasons may abstain from the act or may choose to try to conceive (is this altering the act too, by increasing frequency and or “timing” the act at the most fertile time?)

Well, I disagree. The act, over the course of one, two five years, at some point, would result in pregnancy. It is an undeniable fact that something has been removed. Just as with sitting on the bench, if you refuse to look past the act as an individual and independent item, then the guy on the bench can not be held liable…

Take whatever criteria you use against ABC, and apply them to NFP as a system, practiced over time. NOT as an individual act. If you can not accept that idea, then I would propose that the pill a woman takes in the morning is unrelated to her sex that evening. Or, would this be another exception?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

As an exercise, lets try this.

List all the reasons that ABC does violate whatever principals/rules you feel it breaks. And not just “one flesh” or “separates unitive from procreative”. That is not a full thought, its just an unsupported statement. I want to understand HOW ABC breaks a principal, and HOW NFP does not. And no falling back on “only during the act” rules. If ABC breaks a principal during the act, the potential exists to break it outside the act. Even if you are not sold on this, if NFP is accepted, it is good at all times, right?

I want to see if this is possible…

Oh, and no one answered my question from earlier:

I gave an example of sitting on a bench, which is a neutral action. If one were to sit passively while i child is riding into the path of a bus, it is now a negative. Same neutral action, different result.

Not having sex is a moral neutral. Not having sex, systematically, in order to remove any chance of procreation and to avoid fertility is potentially (I say yes) a different matter.

WHY THE DIFFERENCE IN THESE TWO EXAMPLES? The only, ONLY reason the NFP couples chooses to engage or not engage is to remove fertility, or procreating, or whatever term you wish to use. What is wrong with my proposition?

In this analogy are you equating a child being harmed by inaction, to abstaining (inaction) and not conceiving?

It isn’t an exact analogy… the onus on saving the child is morally greater. I am bound to save a child when possible. I am not bound to try to conceive a child.

I can sit at the train station and watch the train go by. (NFP - abstention)

I can ride the train. (attempting to conceive, or being open to conception)

I cannot block the train by diverting it, or sabatouging it’s path (ABC)

 

[kbachler]

There’s no opinion involved here. NFP by it’s very NATURE cannot be anything you just mentioned.
It has nothing to do with where the teaching came from. It has to do with what the teaching is.
There’s no opinion involved… we’re discussing facts and teachings, not “thoughts and opinions” on them…

And apparently I’m not “done”…

I’m sorry, if its a fact, then state the hypothesis and experiment that established it as such.

We have SERIOUSLY stated why we believe that there are things about NFP which disorder the act. We agree that these are opinions, but they also appear to be self-evident. (If they act weren’t disordered, NFP wouldn’t even exist - there would be no reason for it.)

You know, there is an old mathematical proof that two functions that start with the same (name removed by moderator)uts that produce exactly the same outputs, even though they may look quite different, are in fact equivalent.

This concept can be applied to sets, and even to systems (sets with rules.) In this way it can be shown, for example, that algebra and geometry are really the same thing - they are isomorphic.

I bet that I can build an argument that shows that NFP and ABC are isomorphic, in which case it would be impossible to state that one is moral and the other is not. They would have to have the same morality. We are close to building that case now.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Well, I disagree. The act, over the course of one, two five years, at some point, would result in pregnancy. It is an undeniable fact that something has been removed. Just as with sitting on the bench, if you refuse to look past the act as an individual and independent item, then the guy on the bench can not be held liable…

Take whatever criteria you use against ABC, and apply them to NFP as a system, practiced over time. NOT as an individual act. If you can not accept that idea, then I would propose that the pill a woman takes in the morning is unrelated to her sex that evening. Or, would this be another exception?

NFP is not a “series of actions”… it is individual actions, each analyzed on a unique basis. This is by definition.
The pill, on the other hand, makes the intent to contracept in the morning, and continues in those powers throughout the day.
With NFP a couple could suddenly have a change in their reasons for using it… and can change their mind instantaneously.
With NFP they have never abused the act in any way… they simply abstained from it.

 

[Jennifer_J]

Jennifer, if NFP+A changes nothing about the act, then why do couples do it? Why do couples do ABC? Why does even HV clearly state that its clear that the couple’s intent under NFP and ABC is the same?

The couple IS removing something from the act. They are changing the timing so that the likelihood that a sperm will fertilize an egg isn’t there. If they aren’t doing this, then why are they doing NFP?

Moreover, even if we bought your argument, why would doing it this way be more, but using a barrier to accomplish the same thing, be immoral? (Note that the Church DOES NOT make an argument based on what is natural, because that argument DOESN’T WORK.)

We’ve already said the intent to not conceive is the same. That is not the contention. The Church CLEARLY says that the intent to not conceive CAN be moral, for just/serious/grave reasons. The Church also CLEARLY teaches that the marital embrace must be BOTH unitive and procreative because that is the MEANING of the act–it is sacramental in nature as it renews the sacrament where you promise that 2 become one and that you will be open to children. While it is possible to strip the act of these meanings, it is not morally sound to do so.

Couples use NFP for many reasons, some to actually conceive and some to avoid conception, some just to have the health info. Both are timing the act. This doesn’t change the act. Abstaining, either periodically or totally for a time doesn’t change the act. The act isn’t occuring or is occuring at a later date.

 

[kbachler]

In this analogy are you equating a child being harmed by inaction, to abstaining (inaction) and not conceiving?

It isn’t an exact analogy… the onus on saving the child is morally greater. I am bound to save a child when possible. I am not bound to try to conceive a child.

I can sit at the train station and watch the train go by. (NFP - abstention)

I can ride the train. (attempting to conceive, or being open to conception)

I cannot block the train by diverting it, or sabatouging it’s path (ABC)

Bad analogy. The thing to block would be YOU, not the train. The thing you describe as NFP above is ACTUALLY ABC (you blocked yourself). NFP would be CHOOSING TO TAKE A LATER TRAIN.

By you’re own analogy you’ve demonstrated that this is horribly misunderstood, and that even you fundamentally see NFP and ABC as the same thing.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I bet that I can build an argument that shows that NFP and ABC are isomorphic, in which case it would be impossible to state that one is moral and the other is not. They would have to have the same morality. We are close to building that case now.

Yea, call the Pope …Morality is not mathematics. Math doesn’t prove morality.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m sorry, if its a fact, then state the hypothesis and experiment that established it as such.

We have SERIOUSLY stated why we believe that there are things about NFP which disorder the act. We agree that these are opinions, but they also appear to be self-evident. (If they act weren’t disordered, NFP wouldn’t even exist - there would be no reason for it.)

You know, there is an old mathematical proof that two functions that start with the same (name removed by moderator)uts that produce exactly the same outputs, even though they may look quite different, are in fact equivalent.

This concept can be applied to sets, and even to systems (sets with rules.) In this way it can be shown, for example, that algebra and geometry are really the same thing - they are isomorphic.

I bet that I can build an argument that shows that NFP and ABC are isomorphic, in which case it would be impossible to state that one is moral and the other is not. They would have to have the same morality. We are close to building that case now.

Fact and teaching:
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

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

 

[PassingThru]

There’s no opinion involved here. NFP by it’s very NATURE cannot be anything you just mentioned.
It has nothing to do with where the teaching came from. It has to do with what the teaching is.
There’s no opinion involved… we’re discussing facts and teachings, not “thoughts and opinions” on them…

And apparently I’m not “done”…

Well, if what you say is fact, due to it coming from the Church, then that end the discussion.

What I said is what I believe, it comes from my church, it is fact, it is not opinion.

See, if that was my approach, we have no discussion. If that is as far as you can go, then yes, we are at an end. But, that is not on my head. You can try an support your claims with something other than “its my faith”. Really that is all you have proposed at this point.

Sorry.

 

[kbachler]

We’ve already said the intent to not conceive is the same. That is not the contention. The Church CLEARLY says that the intent to not conceive CAN be moral, for just/serious/grave reasons. The Church also CLEARLY teaches that the marital embrace must be BOTH unitive and procreative because that is the MEANING of the act–it is sacramental in nature as it renews the sacrament where you promise that 2 become one and that you will be open to children. While it is possible to strip the act of these meanings, it is not morally sound to do so.

Couples use NFP for many reasons, some to actually conceive and some to avoid conception, some just to have the health info. Both are timing the act. This doesn’t change the act. Abstaining, either periodically or totally for a time doesn’t change the act. The act isn’t occuring or is occuring at a later date.

And NFP is not unitive when abstaining, and not procreative when fulfilling the act during an infertile period.

Therefore, if the intent is the same (we agree that it is) and the act fails the same tests, why is ABC different than NFP?

 

[jilly4ski]

Originally Posted by jilly4ski View Post
You and Kblacher seem to be unable to see that there is a difference in having sex and not having sex. It is really as simple as that.
{/quote]
That’s not our point, nor our argument. You are addressing something that we do not contend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jilly4ski View Post
The couple cannot have a child right now (with good reasons) so they do not have sex. This is very different than just having sex whenever they want to and just sterilizing it.
No one argued for sterilizing it. Not our point either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jilly4ski View Post
(BTW nobody seemed to disagree with my previous statement that it cannot be immoral to merely change the timing of the act, see below)
ALSO, not our point. The point is that changing the timing and/or frequency based on NFP is not logically different from ABC (ignoring any ABC with abortive qualities.) Therefore, if one is moral, BOTH should be, if one is immoral, BOTH should be.

THAT is the point.

So what is it that you object to? The a couple can plan their family, or that a couple has to abstain in order to plan that family?

Wait, I thought the whole point of this thread is to distinguish NFP from ABC. There you have it, ABC sterilizes sex. NFP does not sterilize sex, because they do not change their objective fertility. This is why they are logically different.

So we can view the difference in this this way, no sex and regular sex, versus sterilized sex. How can you deny that there is a difference in not having sex and having sterilized sex during the fertile time?

The other issues is that changing the timing of sex cannot be immoral (as I have demonstrated), but engaging in sterilized sex that we purposefully sterilize is immoral. If your question is really why sterilized sex (not infertile sex) is immoral I am not sure I can help you. Em was giving you God’s purpose for marriage and sex, (babies and bonding) and those two purposes are connected and that when we try to sever God’s purposes for sex and the marital covenant it is immoral. If you didn’t listen to her then you won’t listen to me.

You see NFP is logical, but only if you accept the premises of why God created marital sex and how he wants us to use those faculties. I also think that is logical from looking at the world, but I won’t deny there is a bit of faith involved as well.

 

[Em_in_FL]

And NFP is not unitive when abstaining, and not procreative when fulfilling the act during an infertile period.

Therefore, if the intent is the same (we agree that it is) and the act fails the same tests, why is ABC different than NFP?

Are we still struggling with vocabulary?

Procreative… adjective… describing the way something is done.
It doesn’t mean fertility needs to exist.
It simply describes the way the act needs to be done.

Another FACT you are completely ignoring…

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Bad analogy. The thing to block would be YOU, not the train. The thing you describe as NFP above is ACTUALLY ABC (you blocked yourself). NFP would be CHOOSING TO TAKE A LATER TRAIN.

By you’re own analogy you’ve demonstrated that this is horribly misunderstood, and that even you fundamentally see NFP and ABC as the same thing.

No, the train does not equal sex (I’m not Freud) The train = fertility.

I know that abstaining and having sex are 2 opposites.

 

[kbachler]

Fact and teaching:
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

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

Teaching, but not fact.

For example: “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.” No proof given. Hence OPINION, not fact.

Or: 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.

Again, no reason given to state it as a fact. No test. No proof. No experiment. No Biblical reference. Nothing.

Think of Christ’s teachings. Think of how often He referred to “you have read” “you have heard”.

Where is that here?

Moreover, IT’S SELF CONTRADICTORY, because NFP+A falls within that statement as an action that renders procreation impossible, so NFP+A is intrinsically evil.

Look, there may be a logical, good moral reason for a difference. It’s not here.

 

[kbachler]

No, the train does not equal sex (I’m not Freud) The train = fertility.

I know that abstaining and having sex are 2 opposites.

I understand that. One does not block fertility. You actually made my point a second time. One blocks ACCESS TO fertility.

Two for two.

 

[Jennifer_J]

And NFP is not unitive when abstaining, and not procreative when fulfilling the act during an infertile period.

Therefore, if the intent is the same (we agree that it is) and the act fails the same tests, why is ABC different than NFP?

But it IS procreative, even if I’m naturally infertile, because the act is done in a manner that is defined as procreative. It may not result in procreation, but it is procreative–ORDERED TOWARD PROCREATION.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Teaching, but not fact.

For example: “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.” No proof given. Hence OPINION, not fact.

Or: 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.

Again, no reason given to state it as a fact. No test. No proof. No experiment. No Biblical reference. Nothing.

Think of Christ’s teachings. Think of how often He referred to “you have read” “you have heard”.

Where is that here?

Moreover, IT’S SELF CONTRADICTORY, because NFP+A falls within that statement as an action that renders procreation impossible, so NFP+A is intrinsically evil.

Look, there may be a logical, good moral reason for a difference. It’s not here.

Have you read the references at the bottom of the Catechism? (HV, CC, FC, etc…???)
And your last statement is completely FALSE. Sex while infertile can still be procreative. Abstinence is not an action.