Circular NFP reasoning

[martino]

DVIN CKS:

This is why NFP CAN and DOES deny the full potential of the act – at least to the woman. Bottom line…the only time a woman can enjoy sex at her highest state of arrousal is if she is willing to become pregnant.

.

I promise that I am not picking on you, we just continue to disagree on this issue. In the above quote you said that a woman can only enjoy sex at her highest state of arrousal if she is willing to become pregnant. Those that use contraceptives are unwilling ot become pregnant so how is it that you conclude, “NFP CAN and DOES deny the full potential of the act”?

It seems that by your own logic, contracepting women deny themselves the full potential of the act. Am I on target here or did I misunderstand your point.

 

[Princess_Abby]

just thought i would point out that women who contracept by using the pill are taking away their ability to ovulate and therefore aren’t “fertile,” nor experiencing the heightened sense of arousal…at all…during the month.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I get the impression that very few of us are taking my proposal seriously. Here’s where we are: since allegedly the problem with ABC is that is separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital union, it is intrinsically evil. Since NFP does not thus separate, it is not intrinsically evil. I propose that having sex only when not fertile does not preserve the union of the two functions, because we are denying “giving ourselves 100% to each other” because we are only giving when we know we are only at 1% fertility.

Let's look for some insight at a Christopher West article that bear06 offered, at:
[catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fea3.asp](http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0311fea3.asp)

Christopher West:

A further question arises: Would a couple be doing anything to falsify their sexual union if they have sexual intercourse knowing they were naturally infertile? Take a couple past childbearing years. They know their union will not result in a child. Are they violating “the sign” if they engage in intercourse with this knowledge? Are they contracepting?

No. Neither are couples who use NFP to avoid a child. They track their fertility, abstain when they are fertile and, if they so desire, make love when they are naturally infertile. (I should add that modern methods of NFP are 98 to 99 percent effective at avoiding pregnancy when used properly. This is not your grandmother’s “rhythm method.”)

People will often retort, “C’mon! That’s splitting hairs! What’s the big difference between rendering the union sterile yourself and just waiting until it’s naturally infertile? End result’s the same thing.” To which I respond: What’s the big difference between a miscarriage and an abortion? End result’s the same thing. One is an act of God. In the other, man takes the powers of life into his own hands and tries to make himself like God (cf. Gen. 3:5).

First of all, note that modern methods of NFP are very effective at avoiding pregnancy when used properly. So, if your goal is to avoid getting pregnant, you can use ABC but you’d be wiser to use NFP because it is so effective.

Next, Mr. West asks what is the “big” difference between a miscarriage and an abortion. The biggest difference is that one involves the intentional taking of an innocent human life, while the other does not. Therefore, one is intrinsically evil, while the other is not. While I have no doubt he honestly believes this analogy applies to NFP v ABC, one must already believe that ABC is intrinsically evil, so we are presupposing the conclusion as a premise, which is logically absurd. In the case of NFP and ABC, both of them are human attempts to deliberately avoid the procreative joining of gametes while preserving the unitive function of the sexual act.

I would not have had the same ability to refute this as a valid analogy if we were discussing abortifacient v barrier methods of ABC. Then the analogy would be perfectly valid, as we would be talking about the difference between choosing not to readily facilitate the procreative aspects of a particular sex act, and killing an innocent human being. Pro-life teaching says that life begins at conception, so the IUD, the Pill (at least some kinds) which allow conception and then bring about conditions that the baby is aborted, are killing. There is no comparable intrinsic evil in preventing gametes from joining to bring about conception.
(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued from last post)
Consider the last two paragraphs of “Why Agonize Over an Abortion? : Both Science and Faith Lead Us to the Truth”
By Chris Butler, at:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102fea2.asp
Chris Butler:

Biologists of every position on the abortion issue concede that human life begins at conception. That is when a genetically distinct individual with 46 chromosomes comes into being. At that point the color of the hair and eyes, the fingerprints, the predisposition to various diseases and so on have been determined. All that is needed are the proper oxygen and nutrients for the individual to grow into a healthy adult.

It is true that every time a fertilized egg dies you have the death of an actual human being. But this shouldn’t be hard to believe. Throughout much of history—and still in many parts of the world—the infant mortality rate has been very high, and so all sorts of genuine humans have died without our ever getting a chance to find out what their personality was like. We mourn to the degree we knew them.

Fertilized egg dies = intrinsic evil.
Therefore abortion = intrinsic evil
Therefore IUD = intrinsic evil
Therefore Pill = intrinsic evil
Therefore egg doesn’t get fertilized = NO intrinsic evil.

Now, back to the issue of where is the evil in ABC barrier methods, we look again to the West article:
Christopher West:

In order to be “true to the sign,” spouses must speak as Christ speaks. Christ gives his body freely (“No one takes it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord” [John 10:18]). He gives his body without reservation (“He loved them to the end” [John 13:1]). He gives his body faithfully (“I am with you always” [Matt. 28:20]). And he gives his body fruitfully (“I came that they may have life” [John 10:10]).

“To think that constraining the free flow of body fluids impedes me from loving my wife is ludicrous.” This sentiment—angrily expressed in a letter I received—typifies the “dis-incarnate” view of love used to justify contraception. For this man, love is not revealed in the body (and its fluids), but is something purely spiritual.

Applying the same “dis-incarnate” view of love to Christ, what are we to make of Christ’s blood that was shed for us on the cross and given as drink in the Eucharist? Is this “free flow of body fluids” not the definitive accomplishment of Christ’s spiritual love for his Bride? If Christ had withheld his blood in a mock crucifixion, would this have sufficed? “Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb. 9:22). Similarly, without the giving of the seed, there is no conjugal act.

Using this argument, ABC barrier methods prevent the giving of the seed. If that is the case, then knowingly “giving of the seed” when the woman is naturally infertile is like intentionally spreading the seed on the path or on the rocks while actively avoiding the rich soil.
Matt 13:4-5:

And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path, and birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky ground, where it had little soil. It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep,

The seed sown on the path is the one who hears the word of the kingdom without understanding it, and the evil one comes and steals away what was sown in his heart. The seed sown on rocky ground is the one who hears the word and receives it at once with joy. But he has no root and lasts only for a time. When some tribulation or persecution comes because of the word, he immediately falls away.

Alan

 

[martino]

Alan, Alan, Alan, I’m starting to think that you are playing with my head!

I am only going to address one of the points that you made:
You said, “I propose that having sex only when not fertile does not preserve the union of the two functions, because we are denying ‘giving ourselves 100% to each other’ because we are only giving when we know we are only at 1% fertility.”

By using the exact same logic you could also conclude that, “sitting on the couch watching the football game doesn’t preserve the two functions of the marital act, therefore sitting on the couch is just as sinful as ABC!” You keep saying that “not having sex” is equal to “having sex with barriers” because neither is open to life! Can you see how obsurd this logic is?

Let’s say that while the ABC couple enjoys the unitive aspect of the sexual act with out the pro-creative, the NFP couple is watching the late night movie on TNT. Keep in mind that neither couple is engaged in an action that is open to life- how do you morally equate these two scenarios??

I know you’re online right now so I will wait for your answer!

 

[bear06]

I doubt I could ever find this in the mass of posts on this but at some point you mentioned about the seed dying using NFP or barrier methods and this was “where your what’s the difference” question came in. The West quote covers that aspect. He’s applying the analogy of abortion vs. miscarriage to this aspect. He’s not saying that seed IS a life.

You also didn’t point out one specific part of the quote:

One is an act of God. In the other, man takes the powers of life into his own hands and tries to make himself like God (cf. Gen. 3:5).

When we use NFP we are not acting like God, we are only using His fertility signs that he gave us.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

martino:

Those that use contraceptives are unwilling ot become pregnant so how is it that you conclude, “NFP CAN and DOES deny the full potential of the act”?

Simple…because the “full potential” of the marital act means including BOTH the fertility aspect AND the pleasurable aspect during marital sex (at least according to the Church). We’ve argued for pages now that those two aspects should not be separated. So, in the old days (before the technology of ABC or the knowledge of how a woman’s body works - ie. NFP) the thought of doing ANYTHING to avoid pregnancy wasn’t even on the radar in people’s minds. People just “listened to their bodies” and had sex when the desire was there. For women, that time would be during ovulation. As a result, it wasn’t uncommon to have a lot of kids in one family. Now that we know more about how the body works and we’ve come a long way in medical technology, we can avoid the fertile periods and control the size of our families a lot easier. Large families today are by choice, not chance.

It seems that by your own logic, contracepting women deny themselves the full potential of the act. Am I on target here or did I misunderstand your point.

You are RIGHT on target here! You totally got my point! I would only clarify by stating that this is only true for women who take hormone drugs such as the pill to affect their ovulation. Speaking from experience, while I was on the pill, my desire for sex was the same all month long. When I went off the pill, I noticed that my desire was greater when I was fertile. So, IMO being on the pill robbed me of the “full experience” not only from the procreative aspect but ALSO from the pleasurable aspect of the unitive act. Using NFP technology would rob me of the exact same thing because I’d have to have sex when I was infertile and when my desire would be at its lowest.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Alan, Alan, Alan, I’m starting to think that you are playing with my head!

You’re just now starting to think that?

I am only going to address one of the points that you made:
You said, “I propose that having sex only when not fertile does not preserve the union of the two functions, because we are denying ‘giving ourselves 100% to each other’ because we are only giving when we know we are only at 1% fertility.”

By using the exact same logic you could also conclude that, “sitting on the couch watching the football game doesn’t preserve the two functions of the marital act, therefore sitting on the couch is just as sinful as ABC!” You keep saying that “not having sex” is equal to “having sex with barriers” because neither is open to life! Can you see how obsurd this logic is?

That would be absurd, yes. Perhaps I should draw emphasis away from abstinence per se, but on periodic abstinence using NFP. As I recall, “your side” contends that abstinence differs from ABC in its aspect of self-control. With abstinence you are sacrificing both functions of the act while with ABC you are trying to preserve the unitive function while avoiding the procreative function, and that’s bad because the two MUST NEVER be separated.:tsktsk:

So by those standards let’s look at NFP. If you are ensuring with 98%-99% confidence that the procreative aspect will be suppressed, how is that giving yourself 100% to each other? It sounds like you have maybe 90-99% of the unitive function (because of what the women have told us above in the post) and 1-2% of the procreative function. That doesn’t sound like “giving yourself freely, completely, and in a life-giving way.”:nope:

Let’s say that while the ABC couple enjoys the unitive aspect of the sexual act with out the pro-creative, the NFP couple is watching the late night movie on TNT. Keep in mind that neither couple is engaged in an action that is open to life- how do you morally equate these two scenarios??

The spouses using ABC giving of themselves partially to each other. They are enjoying the unitive with 1%-5% chance of pro-creative, depending on their technique. Perhaps we can call anything less than 6%as not “open” to life.

Same two couples, one week later: Now only the cat is watching the late night movie while the ABC couple is unitive with maybe 1%-5% procreative opportunity, and NFP couple is unitive with 1%-2% procreative. At this point they are morally equivalent.:yup:

I know you’re online right now so I will wait for your answer!

Careful! Sometimes I forget to log out and leave the house for hours.

Alan

 

[DVIN_CKS]

bear06:

This still doesn’t make sense to me. Drive is one thing, pleasure is another. Just because the drive may be higher, doesn’t mean the pleasure is.

Go back to the eating analogy. Isn’t eating food more satisfying when you’re hungry? Same could apply here. I don’t want to have sex when I’m not hungry for it. I’m going to enjoy it more when I have an appetite for it. NFP thinking keeps a woman from engaging in sex when her appetite for it is at a peak. This is just from the physiological standpoint of how our bodies normally work. How mother nature intended. From an emotional standpoint, I agree with you…the marital union is a very pleasurable aspect.

 

[DVIN_CKS]

bear06:

I was just reading an article on menopause the other day and it was talking about how many woman actually have more pleasure after menopause due to higher levels of testosterone. I didn’t know that and I’m assuming it is medically sound but it could be wrong. This would then blow your theory right out of the water.

First of all, I’m not purposing a theory here. I’ve had numerous conversations about the physiology of the body (well, MY body at least) with gyn nurses and my doctor. What I describe as far as a woman’s increase in “desire” being timed with ovulation is very much true. It all comes down to hormones. It is true that testosterone heightens a woman’s sex drive so the article you read is probably right on target. Birth control pills are full of progesterone which “tricks” the woman’s body into thinking that she is already pregnant and therefore she doesn’t ovulate.

 

[bear06]

I’m not disagreeing with you on the drive!!! God had a plan when he made it this way. However, we are not just slaves to “the drive”. How many times in life have we heard that for women sex is 90% mental and only 10% physical? It’s true.

Mental is far more a player in sexual drive for women than simple fertility. Let’s just look at this senario which of course would be exagerrated but there are many other times things like this could occur on a lesser scale that would affect our “drive”. A woman is fertile and is looking forward to a romantic evening with her husband and it happens to be their anniversary. Husband totally forgets, which makes wife very sad. Poof, “drive” is gone. (Thankfully hasn’t happened here.) Two weeks later husband realizes mistake, buys a gazillion roses, writes lovely letter, “drive” is probably back in a big way.

How boring would that be if there were only supreme feelings of arousal 4 days a month? Sure, I think we probably all fall into the trap of not working at our relationships but we should thwart this. There are daily things that can attack our intimacy no matter whether or not it is a woman’s fertile time. There are also ways to enhance intimacy (and I’m not talking kinky here ) during the non-fertile times. Our love is not just a physical thing but a physical and a spiritual put together which makes it more than just sex.

I still believe that it’s utterly ridiculous to think that the best sex can only be achieved during fertile periods. Remember, God did give us will an intellect that makes us a little better than an animals in heat. There’s a lot of mental that goes into the marital act.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

AlanFromWichita:

So by those standards let’s look at NFP. If you are ensuring with 98%-99% confidence that the procreative aspect will be suppressed, how is that giving yourself 100% to each other? It sounds like you have maybe 90-99% of the unitive function (because of what the women have told us above in the post) and 1-2% of the procreative function. That doesn’t sound like “giving yourself freely, completely, and in a life-giving way.”:nope:

The spouses using ABC giving of themselves partially to each other. They are enjoying the unitive with 1%-5% chance of pro-creative, depending on their technique. Perhaps we can call anything less than 6%as not “open” to life.

Same two couples, one week later: Now only the cat is watching the late night movie while the ABC couple is unitive with maybe 1%-5% procreative opportunity, and NFP couple is unitive with 1%-2% procreative. At this point they are morally equivalent.:yup:
Careful! Sometimes I forget to log out and leave the house for hours.

They are not and cannot be equal. They may both be working to the same end but they are NEVER equal. They both work in ways that have different characteristic natures and not morally equivalent. A Couple deciding to abstain is never morally evil. Every couple is forced by design to choose to abstain at some point. A couple using ABC does not respect the created order inside the human body. The end is the same (and how selfish they are being will be dealt with in front of God and it is a lot harder to be selfish when using NFP) but the method is the key difference.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[martino]

Perhaps I should draw emphasis away from abstinence per se, but on periodic abstinence using NFP. As I recall, “your side” contends that abstinence differs from ABC in its aspect of self-control.
So by those standards let’s look at NFP. If you are ensuring with 98%-99% confidence that the procreative aspect will be suppressed, how is that giving yourself 100% to each other? It sounds like you have maybe 90-99% of the unitive function (because of what the women have told us above in the post) and 1-2% of the procreative function. That doesn’t sound like “giving yourself freely, completely, and in a life-giving way.”:nope:

The spouses using ABC giving of themselves partially to each other. They are enjoying the unitive with 1%-5% chance of pro-creative, depending on their technique. Perhaps we can call anything less than 6%as not “open” to life.

Same two couples, one week later: Now only the cat is watching the late night movie while the ABC couple is unitive with maybe 1%-5% procreative opportunity, and NFP couple is unitive with 1%-2% procreative. At this point they are morally equivalent.:yup:
Careful! Sometimes I forget to log out and leave the house for hours.

Alan

Ok Alan, at least I think that I finally understand where you are coming from. Of course you are still wrong. You are still (probably without realizing it) equating “not having sex” to “having sex with barriers.” Let me see if I can show you what I mean.

None of your percentages mean anything, you are confusing the issue by using them. There is never a time when any couple has a 100% chance of becoming pregnant, you cannot use “odds” as the criteria for determining different degrees of the “pro-creative” aspect. I don’t even think Vegas plays these odds! By this reasoning it would be impossible for anyone to ever be 100% open to life.

Let’s use your example of the same two couples one week later (both couples partake in the sex act, only the cat is watching the tube). The ABC couple is still “not open to life”, we would both (i hope) agree on that. They are still using ABC and therefore withholding from each other. Now you tell me; what is the NFP couple withholding from each other? This is the key question!

The only answer that you can give to support your position is that while the NFP couple may not actually be withholding anything during the sex act (cannot withhold what you don’t have), they withheld from each other last week by not having sex. Again, you are equating “not having sex” to “having sex with barriers”!

If you do nothing else, answer the question above!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

CatholicMatthew:

They are not and cannot be equal. They may both be working to the same end but they are NEVER equal. They both work in ways that have different characteristic natures and not morally equivalent. A Couple deciding to abstain is never morally evil. Every couple is forced by design to choose to abstain at some point. A couple using ABC does not respect the created order inside the human body. The end is the same (and how selfish they are being will be dealt with in front of God and it is a lot harder to be selfish when using NFP) but the method is the key difference.

Dear Matthew,

Then you must be basing your argument on something other than the intentional separation of unitive and procreative functions. Abstinence per se doesn’t do that, but periodic abstinence, strategically timed with scientifically derived strategy, does that, specifically and intentionally. If it didn’t, it couldn’t claim such a high “success” rate.

How is NFP for conception prevention not at odds with the Church teaching that the unitive and procreative function must never be separated?

I’ve heard it taught that sex with ABC is a lie, because love is a language whereby the couples disclose themselves fully in the marital act or something like that. I say that if you knowingly and intentionally do it only during infertile periods, it is like one spouse whispering the truth to the other only while the other is asleep or is otherwise not able to hear.

I am not trying to dissuade anyone from using NFP. I just object to those who say THIS method of separating procreation and unitive functions is a sin and THAT method isn’t because one uses a “brute force” approach to evading God’s fertility plan and the other uses clever, strategic timing tricks to evading God’s fertility plan.

Perhaps I should ask more about NFP-based methods of pregnancy avoidance. Do they use calendars? Do they use any form of mathematics? Do they require thermometers? If so, how can they be said to be any more “natural” than, for example, the withdrawal method?

Alan

 

[javelin]

Alan,

AlanFromWichita:

I get the impression that very few of us are taking my proposal seriously.

I am taking you seriously, but I’m starting to wonder if you are taking me seriously.

AlanFromWichita:

Here’s where we are: since allegedly the problem with ABC is that is separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital union, it is intrinsically evil. Since NFP does not thus separate, it is not intrinsically evil.

Here is where the problem starts, and probably ends. The proposition you stated above that you trying to logically disprove is, indeed, false. ABC is not intrinsically evil simply because “it separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital union”. To argue that is to argue that sex is only for procreation, period. That is NOT what the Church teaches. The proposition you are arguing against is **NOT **what the Church teaches! It seems every attempt that I’ve made to make that clear has been for naught. But I’ll try again…

First of all, NFP is simply a method of monitoring fertility. While its purpose can be identical to using ABC (postponing pregnancy), the means is completely different. NFP uses abstinence as its means, while ABC acts as a barrier or by chemically altering a woman’s ability to become pregnant. You have already stated that you agree that abortifacient means are morally wrong, so the focus is on certain barrier methods. Also, is appears to be agreed upon that using NFP to avoid children for selfish intent is also immoral, so we need to suppose here that when we say NFP, we really mean “valid use of NFP”, and when we say ABC we mean “non-abortifacient methods of ABC”.

It is important to note that we are not arguing “the overall effect of using NFP to avoid pregnancy” vs. “the overall effect of using ABCs (condoms) to avoid pregnancy”.

We are looking at precisely what about, or surrounding, each marital union may be immoral.

Not “methods” or “effects”, but each instance of the marital union itself. To argue more broadly without understanding what the Church teaches about each distinct sexual union would be trying to describe the forest without using trees.

It seems your historical argument has been one of two things:

1. Abstaining with the intent of avoiding pregnancy is analogous to using contraception to avoid pregnancy.
2. Having sex during a woman’s infertile time is analogous to having sex while using contraceptives because both equally lack procreative potential (not “giving fully”, etc.).

You appear to be on point 2 right now, so that is what I will address.

Here is what the CCC#2370, quoting Humane Vitae says that the real issue is:

“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. “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” (FC 32)

IMPORTANT NOTE: Nowhere is it stated that the sexual act itself is intrinsically evil! Rather, it is the action to contracept, i.e., the “positive refusal to be open to life” that is intrinsically evil.

---

Unfortunately, I can’t write more this moment (work calls), but I will continue later. If we can at least agree that the above statement of the Church is what is being debated, that will be a good start.

Peace,
javelin

 

[DVIN_CKS]

javelin…you make the assumption that Alan doesn’t know what the church teaches. I think that is incorrect. From reading through his posts, he understands exactly where the church stands. I think the only difference is that he is coming to this discussion without any preconceived ideas of what is considered morally evil and what isn’t. I could be wrong…Alan will have to correct me. I don’t want to speak for him, but feel that from a purely logical standpoint, he’s made some very insightful comments (at least for me anyway).

 

[martino]

DVIN CKS:

javelin…you make the assumption that Alan doesn’t know what the church teaches. I think that is incorrect. From reading through his posts, he understands exactly where the church stands. I think the only difference is that he is coming to this discussion without any preconceived ideas of what is considered morally evil and what isn’t. I could be wrong…Alan will have to correct me. I don’t want to speak for him, but feel that from a purely logical standpoint, he’s made some very insightful comments (at least for me anyway).

Hey DVIN CKS, me again!! My last post was for Alan to answer but seeing that you and him are basically on the same page and Javelin and I are as well, could you go back to my last post and answer the question that I had posed to Alan. I am trying to get a better handle on what you guys are actually saying and the answer to that question would be very helpful.

thanks

 

[DVIN_CKS]

martino:

Let’s use your example of the same two couples one week later (both couples partake in the sex act, only the cat is watching the tube). The ABC couple is still “not open to life”, we would both (i hope) agree on that. They are still using ABC and therefore withholding from each other. Now you tell me; what is the NFP couple withholding from each other? This is the key question!

The only answer that you can give to support your position is that while the NFP couple may not actually be withholding anything during the sex act (cannot withhold what you don’t have), they withheld from each other last week by not having sex. Again, you are equating “not having sex” to “having sex with barriers”!

If you do nothing else, answer the question above!

I’m not answering for Alan, but since you want me to answer the same question, I’ll take a stab at it.

One week later, the difference now is that the NFP couple is engaging in the sex act while the wife is infertile. The NFP couple are STILL not open to fertilization because they are now having marital sex during an infertile period. Their chances of conceiving are only 1 - 2% (the ABC couple at least has a greater % of conceiving since their method isn’t as “foolproof”). How does the NFP couple’s actions represent an attitude of “being open to life” any more than the ABC couple’s? The NFP couple is withholding the exact same thing from each other as the ABC couple…their FULL fertile potential. You are not being 100% open to life if you only engage in marital sex during the woman’s infertile time. Do you agree with that?

As far as your comment “you can’t withhold what you don’t have”, all I’ll say is that the woman in the above scenario is withholding her fertility from her husband. This is part of her FULL potential as a sexual being. You are marginalizing a woman’s fertility and the importance it plays in the “intrinsic relationship” if you insist on viewing abstinence as being 100% open to life. I think what you’re saying is since the man’s sperm isn’t being cut out of the act then you think that you are being open to life. But you ARE cutting out the woman’s egg by only having sex when she’s infertile. Which would lead me to believe that you see the egg’s function in fertilization as inferior to the sperm’s. There is no equality in the marital act when BOTH potentials are not FULLY present. That is why some don’t see NFP as being fully open to both aspects of the marital act.

Also…I don’t equate “not having sex” with “having sex with a barrier” as you have accused Alan of believing. I equate “not having sex” with “not having fertilization occur”.

 

[martino]

DVIN CKS:

One week later, the difference now is that the NFP couple is engaging in the sex act while the wife is infertile. The NFP couple are STILL not open to fertilization because they are now having marital sex during an infertile period. Their chances of conceiving are only 1 - 2% (the ABC couple at least has a greater % of conceiving since their method isn’t as “foolproof”).

So “not having sex” during feritile periods is the same or worse than “having sex with barriers”? According to your use of percentages the couple that uses artificial contraception is actually better off than the couple that abstains from sex.

How does the NFP couple’s actions represent an attitude of “being open to life” any more than the ABC couple’s?

I am not talking about the attitude, we have already granted that the attitude in both scenarios is the same, the only question is the method used.

As far as your comment “you can’t withhold what you don’t have”, all I’ll say is that the woman in the above scenario is withholding her fertility from her husband.

What is the woman withholding from her husband during the sex act? I am a little lost on this one. Remember we are not talking about the week before when they abstained. The only relevant moment is during the act itself.

Also…I don’t equate “not having sex” with “having sex with a barrier” as you have accused Alan of believing. I equate “not having sex” with “not having fertilization occur”.

On this point we can finally agree. Not having sex does mean that there is no chance of fertilization. So when they are sitting on the couch watching the tv they have no chance of becoming pregnant. When the NFP couple does engage in sex, they give each other all that they have, withholding nothing…if you don’t agree with this you’re going to have to explain to me what the woman or the man is withholding during the sex act.

 

[Lance_O]

DVIN CKS:

Simple…because the “full potential” of the marital act means including BOTH the fertility aspect AND the pleasurable aspect during marital sex (at least according to the Church). We’ve argued for pages now that those two aspects should not be separated.

Never in a million years has the Church said that the two aspects of the marital union that must never be separated are fertility and the pleasurable aspect. :banghead:

They are the procreative and the unitive.

The morality of family planning methods has nothing -absolutely zero- to do with how enjoyable the sex is.