Birth Control

[kbachler]

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.

Sorry, NFP is a series of actions. You keep tabs of measurements, of dates, and times if necessary. You learn about it in advance and how to apply it.

It’s not like you say “today we do nfp” and learn nothing about it. That’s just pure abstinence without nfp.

 

[kbachler]

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

Sorry, it can.

 

[PassingThru]

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.

Yes it is a series of actions. I think you need to look up the word series. You choose to look at it otherwise, but it is still a series. It has books about it. Steps. Different approaches to different steps. Ending in either sex while fertile, sex while not fertile, no sex while fertile, or no sex while not fertile. This part is repeated, which is also part of the series, so it is a repeating series, on a few levels.

Taking your temp in the morning, with the intent to make sure you are not fertile, and only having sex if you are infertile, is not too far off. If you want to make the distinction, feel free.

Changing your mind with NFP is NOT a reason for its morality. See condoms.

Never said they abused an act of sex. And you have not shown how an abuse brought on through ABC is not also propagated through NFP. Your list was an attempt, but it failed quite badly.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Sorry, NFP is a series of actions. You keep tabs of measurements, of dates, and times if necessary. You learn about it in advance and how to apply it.

It’s not like you say “today we do nfp” and learn nothing about it. That’s just pure abstinence without nfp.

But the morality comes into play when each individual ACT takes place.
Sure you’ve gathered up a ton of information, but you can just as easily CHOOSE to engage rather than not. It’s just information. The action of recording data is amoral…

 

[kbachler]

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.

“sterilizes sex” - I have no idea what this means.

“NFP does not sterilize sex, because they do not change their objective fertility”

I don’t know what you mean, but I will say that because a couple CHOOSES to direct the timing and frequency to infertile times, the act is fundamentally changed. They do change their "available fertility. From the sperm’s perspective, objective fertility is changed.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Yes it is a series of actions. I think you need to look up the word series. You choose to look at it otherwise, but it is still a series. It has books about it. Steps. Different approaches to different steps. Ending in either sex while fertile, sex while not fertile, no sex while fertile, or no sex while not fertile. This part is repeated, which is also part of the series, so it is a repeating series, on a few levels.

Taking your temp in the morning, with the intent to make sure you are not fertile, and only having sex if you are infertile, is not too far off. If you want to make the distinction, feel free.

Changing your mind with NFP is NOT a reason for its morality. See condoms.

Never said they abused an act of sex. And you have not shown how an abuse brought on through ABC is not also propagated through NFP. Your list was an attempt, but it failed quite badly.

Choosing whether or not to engage based on SERIOUS/WELL-GROUNDED/GRAVE issues is not immoral. This is prayerfully considering how to use our free will.

 

[Em_in_FL]

“sterilizes sex” - I have no idea what this means.

“NFP does not sterilize sex, because they do not change their objective fertility”

I don’t know what you mean, but I will say that because a couple CHOOSES to direct the timing and frequency to infertile times, the act is fundamentally changed. They do change their "available fertility. From the sperm’s perspective, objective fertility is changed.

What is sex? Sex is used both to unite a couple and to procreate. It is designed to be intertwined. In it’s very design, sex is ordered toward procreation. Fertility cycles, but sex can always be ordered toward procreation.

Taking that definition of sex, using ABC sterilizes the act. It makes that particular act “sterile” and not “ordered toward procreation”.

When a couple chooses, for whatever reason (NFP, health, exhaustion, physical separation) to abstain, the act doesn’t take place. Nothing is sterilized. Sex doesn’t happen…

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

]“sterilizes sex”

• I have no idea what this means.

“NFP does not sterilize sex, because they do not change their objective fertility”

I don’t know what you mean, but I will say that because a couple CHOOSES to direct the timing and frequency to infertile times, the act is fundamentally changed. They do change their "available fertility. From the sperm’s perspective, objective fertility is changed.

Renders infertile.

If i am naturally infertile, I have not sterilized the act (rendered infertile). It would be the same act.

 

[jilly4ski]

“sterilizes sex” - I have no idea what this means.

“NFP does not sterilize sex, because they do not change their objective fertility”

I don’t know what you mean, but I will say that because a couple CHOOSES to direct the timing and frequency to infertile times, the act is fundamentally changed. They do change their "available fertility. From the sperm’s perspective, objective fertility is changed.

So when a couple changes the timing of the act due to some other reason besides fertility are they changing the nature of the act?

 

[PassingThru]

Choosing whether or not to engage based on SERIOUS/WELL-GROUNDED/GRAVE issues is not immoral. This is prayerfully considering how to use our free will.

No one said it was. What are you referencing?

Again, you are somehow stuck thinking we are proving that the act of sex or no sex is itself potentially immoral within NFP. Where are you getting this?

Ill ask again, can you give, lets say, the top 3 ways in which ABC is immoral?

 

[captaincatholic]

I think I can explain this simply.

NFP allows each and every act of intercouse to follow natural conclusion, whether in conception or not in conception. The act is finished, the integrity of the couple is intact. There has been no withholding of self or fertility. If the couple wishes not to conceive that night, they abstain from sex. No sex = no chance of baby. If, on the outside chance, the couple chooses the marital embrace during an infertile time and, defying all logic, still conceive, they still accept the natural consequences, the baby, too the natural conclusion, **In NFP, in order to avoid conception, the couple sacrifices the pleasures of the marital embrace on those nights when conception is likely.
**
A couple using ABC not only prevents any marital embrace from it’s natural conclusion or potential, but it also can serve as an abortifactient in some cases, causing a fertilized egg to be unable to implant in the uterine wall, and starve to death. In order to avoid another pregnancy and child, the couple chooses to close themselves off from the consequences of sexual relations for the pleasure.

Mathematically, NFP allows for conception OR no conception. ABC allows only for no conception.

Another illustration: If a couple who is infertile has sex, and there is no scientific chance for conception, that act is still allowed to follow through to its natural conclusion. This means that fertility is not necessary for a natural conclusion of the act. Whether the infertility is temporary (as in NFP) or permanent (as in health problems), the act remains the same, and open to life. A contracepting couple violates the integrity of their bodies, and preemptively disallow a pregnancy through ARTIFICIAL means.

 

[Em_in_FL]

No one said it was. What are you referencing?

Again, you are somehow stuck thinking we are proving that the act of sex or no sex is itself potentially immoral within NFP. Where are you getting this?

Ill ask again, can you give, lets say, the top 3 ways in which ABC is immoral?

Only one is necessary.
ABC separates the procreative from the unitive aspects.
NFP retains them.

 

[captaincatholic]

Another reason ABC is never acceptable is the chance that a child (re the fertilized egg) can be harmed by starvation, or making the uterine wall inhospitable for implantation. This constitutes manslaughter at the very least, acknowledging the full human potential in that zygote.

If it looks like someone could be killed, don’t do it. If you are unprepared for the consequences of your action, don’t do it.

Translation: If your ABC choice may kill someone, don’t use it,

If you are unprepared for another pregnancy, don;'t have sex when conception may occur. It’s that simple. If you are smart enough to use modern research and technology to p(name removed by moderator)oint when conception will and will not occur, you are using NFP. Good for you.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

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)

Clarifying.

I am at a train station, at the track for the train that goes to Hoboken, NJ I do not want to go to Hoboken.

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

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

Hoboken = conceiving a child

Train = fertility

 

[PassingThru]

Only one is necessary.
ABC separates the procreative from the unitive aspects.
NFP retains them.

Define procreative, your terms.

 

[captaincatholic]

PassingThru, have you read my last 2 posts? Please respond. THank you.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Define procreative, your terms.

Procreative is an adjective. It describes the act. It means “done in a way that could, if fertility is present, achieve conception.”
In layman’s terms… the husband must finish inside his wife, without any barriers, chemicals, and without pulling out. Nothing must be done to the act to cause it to be sterile. The fertility of the woman or the man is not part of this descriptive term of how sex is done.

Editing to add… this is not my “opinion”… This is how the church defines the word as well.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Procreative is an adjective. It describes the act. It means “done in a way that could, if fertility is present, achieve conception.”
In layman’s terms… the husband must finish inside his wife, without any barriers, chemicals, and without pulling out. Nothing must be done to the act to cause it to be sterile. The fertility of the woman or the man is not part of this descriptive term of how sex is done.

Editing to add… this is not my “opinion”… This is how the church defines the word as well.

The Church allows sterile people to marry, taking it as a given that the union will be unitive and procreative.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I’m wondering what good a procreative form does if it is purposefully rendered empty? If you are doing it in a certain “form” yet hoping for it not to result in conception, to me it seems almost like miming. Probably a bad analogy but it’s off the top of my head. Either way an empty form, or pose if you will, doesn’t seem like a distinguishing factor for morality.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I’m wondering what good a procreative form does if it is purposefully rendered empty? If you are doing it in a certain “form” yet hoping for it not to result in conception, to me it seems almost like miming. Probably a bad analogy but it’s off the top of my head. Either way an empty form, or pose if you will, doesn’t seem like a distinguishing factor for morality.

Ahh, see? This is the next logical question that comes up.
This is where INTENT plays a role.
Are the REASONS that the couple is abstaining worth abstaining for?
Are they serious, well-founded, morally-guided reasons?
If not, then this is selfish. If they are, then it’s no issue.