I have not read this entire thread, but the first post brought to mind a post I made on another forum.
AlanFromWichita:
…
Here’s the part I have a problem with. There are two fact/opinions that seem to contradict each other that are prevalent throughout these teachings, often in the same article.
First, we are told by NFP articles and by the Catechism that “artificial” birth contraceptive methods are immoral because they strive to make procreation impossible. NFP, on the other hand, is “open” to life and therefore is submissive to God’s will, while servings its purpose as family planning by taking advantage of knowledge of the natural fertility cycles.
On the other hand, NFP articles often talk about how NFP methods are “scientifically proven” and how they are statistically more effective than artificial means at preventing pregnancy.
What I want to know is, if NFP is more effective at preventing pregnancy than artificial means, and artificial means are immoral because they strive to make conception impossible and therefore are not open to life, then couldn’t one logically conclude that NFP, being more effective at preventing pregnancy than artificial means, would actually be more immoral? Someone please help me out here.
Please note that I am only talking about methods that prevent conception such as condoms and sterilization, not abortive methods such as IUD and most pills.
Alan
Here is that post…
Look, let me start with a couple of simple points and see if we can have an agreed upon starting point.
1)Left unaltered, a young healthy woman’s cycle will typically have only 5-7 days where sexual relations will result in a pregnancy. Women don’t need a “system” to know when they are fertile. Women have noticed the changes in their bodies, the onset of cervical mucus, for instance, since the dawn of time.
2)Men’s fertility is only dependant upon the proper plumbing and having the proper organs producing sperm, in other words, a young healthy man is
always fertile.
Can we agree that these two statements, in simple terms, constitute the “natural order” for the human fertility system?
If we can agree on that basic, and obvious, fact of human existance, let me offer two observations, and ask for direct and clear responses.
A)All modern forms of “contraception” seek to change or alter the above “fertility system”.
The “action” of contraception is to effect a change in an otherwise healthy fertility system.
For instance, the Birth Control Pill “shuts off” a woman’s reproductive system by essentially placing in her body hormonal compounds that tell the existing systems - “don’t ovulate, you are already pregnant” (there are other effects for some pills, but let’s stop there for now).
A condom contains the flow of sperm into a rubber container, keeping the emmission from going where it would normally go in usual sexual relations.
B)All modern forms of Natural Family Planning seek to know and understand the human fertility system.
The “action” of the process called Natural Family Planning is the gathering of information.
If we cannot set A & B above as the baseline for discussions, then to continue is foolish. Those who practice NFP do not see B equal to A, and the Church does not see B equal to A.
Making the “action” of rendering a fertility system
impotent with chemicals, barriers, or surgeries - EQUAL - to the “action” of recording observations of an un-altered fertility system is such a misdirection of real discussion that it is truly a waste of time.
I think there are many valid and compelling issues to discuss with this key teaching of the Church, but to mix up these two processes - which require
entirely different behaviours by the corresponding couples! - as the same is just plain wrong. It defies any logical explanation.
