Concept of Conception Perfection - Your thoughts

[PassingThru]

This may be a bit long, so bear with me!

I have long had trouble with the distinctions between Natural Family Planning (NFP) and Artificial Birth Control (ABC). My concern does not lie with whether ABC is permissible or not, so do not think that is my goal. My issue lies in drawing the distinction between what makes NFP “good” and ABC “bad”.

One of the main problems I see when these discussions occur is that many of the incidental properties of NFP and ABC are mixed in and used to draw a case for or against either method. Things such as:

Learning and communicating about the body
Respect for ones partner
Healthy sexual relationship
Abortifacient properties
Technicalities of “Openness to life” (ie both methods fail)
“One Flesh”
Etc

What I mean by this is that all methods have positive and negative properties that apply to various couples to different degrees. Many times these are not things that are inherent to the method, but more subjective attributes that are not exclusive to the method, or the couple.

What started me thinking was a thought about the progression of NFP recently with modern science.

For the sake of discussion, lets take NFP forward in time a bit. We are now at the point where we can produce a sort of “NFP sensor”. Next to your bed, you can have this NFP Sensor that displays a simple red or green light to indicate whether or not sex will result in fertilization. It may seem a bit far fetched, but really, I don’t think it is too hard to conceive. We already have methods of detecting fertility, see through scanners, air sampling, etc, so this may be closer than we think. Hypothetically at least, lets just assume we are already there.

Now, this device needs no samples or interaction. Lets assume it is very accurate, at least as accurate as the best practitioners of NFP, to mean it is basically error proof (statistically, miracles still apply ) With such advanced detection, it also allows for the minimum “abstinence” time that is required to avoid conception, meaning its accuracy allows the abstinence window to be as small as possible, lets say 3 or 4 days. (This is a guess, I don’t know what this would be, but I think this is close.) Meaning, for the large majority of the month, the light is green, and you can have sex without anxiety of an unplanned pregnancy.

Basically, what I am proposing would be the logical conclusion, or “end point” of the evolution of NFP. NFP is striving towards accuracy, simplicity, ease of practice, and social acceptance, and I would say this is as close as you could get. So, we now have a device that insures this accuracy, but without all the positive or negative “secondary issues” of current NFP practice.

My question then, is does this change anyones opinion on the benefits (or burdens) of NFP? Does this advancement make it somehow less “good” with the secondary benefits removed?

As a follow on, lets take ABC to its own logical end. Let say we also have a pill. Lets say this pill is also incredibly effective, in line with the NFP sensor. We can confirm that medically speaking, it has no side effects, and in no way harms a womans body. We can also confirm that it can not act as an abortifacient. (Lets say it forms a protein around the egg that sperm can’t penetrate. If one somehow does, you are pregnant just as you would be without this pill.) That is just an example, but the important part is that it has no side effects, is verifiably non-abortifacient, and very effective. Women return to normal fertility immediately upon discontinued use. To make it as easy as the NFP sensor, lets say you take one pill, and it remains effective until you take a second pill to reverse its effect.

So, we now have both NFP and ABC at there perfect conclusion. Both are effective, simple, safe, reversible, and usable by anyone. In your mind, what is it about one versus the other that would form your thoughts? Would you now find NFP undesirable? If the Church agreed with this NFP sensor, would you then fail to see any distinction? Or would nothing change, short of a change in Church teaching?

 

[valient_Lucy]

Basically, the Church teaches that the only moral way to avoid pregnancy is to abstain from sex. However, you can use NFP to minimize the time you have to abstain.

Basically, when evaluating a form of family planning, ask yourself, “Does this require abstainance in order to be effective?” If the answer is “No,” it’s probably immoral.

 

[lynx]

The problem with the NFP sensor is that you still can’t have sex whenever you want. Why must a couple abstain from pleasure if the pill is available? Short and sweet, I feel ABC still has a small win over NFP if this is their final conclusion.

 

[manualman]

Lynx made the crucial observation and proceeded to miss the conclusion!

The reason NFP is OK when ABC is not is precisely the same reason people are so desperate to rationalize ABC! NFP is hard, like most things that are good for you. Having to abstain during the fertile times allows (which is different than guarantees, mind you) the couple to preserve the crucial emotional relationship between sex and babies, even if they have good reason not to get pregnant.

Talk to NFP couples a bit about sex and you will see this effect. “Makin’ babies” even laces the intimate conversations the couple has. Contrast this to couples who have long used ABC. Most often for them, sex becomes a mutually gratifying recreational activity. That’s less than sex is supposed to be! Without realizing it, sex becomes an objectification of each other instead of a total giving to one another.

Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t easy. The first couple years of marriage were excruciating for me because I had developed selfish expectations of what marriage would be and that there would be ‘sex on demand’. Needless to say, that isn’t how it works (even for ABC folks), but it was a real eye opener for me when I realized that NFP wasn’t hard because it was an unrealistic expectation. It was hard because I was heavily influenced by the sexually damaged culture I grew up in. Once I internalized that it got a lot easier to practice periodic abstinance.

 

[tjm190]

The Church claims that altering the act of sex is wrong- while NFP alters a sexual relationship, each individual act is left unchanged. That’s the primary distinction I’ve seen.

 

[PassingThru]

The reason NFP is OK when ABC is not is precisely the same reason people are so desperate to rationalize ABC! NFP is hard, like most things that are good for you. Having to abstain during the fertile times allows (which is different than guarantees, mind you) the couple to preserve the crucial emotional relationship between sex and babies, even if they have good reason not to get pregnant.

Talk to NFP couples a bit about sex and you will see this effect. “Makin’ babies” even laces the intimate conversations the couple has. Contrast this to couples who have long used ABC. Most often for them, sex becomes a mutually gratifying recreational activity. That’s less than sex is supposed to be! Without realizing it, sex becomes an objectification of each other instead of a total giving to one another.

Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t easy. The first couple years of marriage were excruciating for me because I had developed selfish expectations of what marriage would be and that there would be ‘sex on demand’. Needless to say, that isn’t how it works (even for ABC folks), but it was a real eye opener for me when I realized that NFP wasn’t hard because it was an unrealistic expectation. It was hard because I was heavily influenced by the sexually damaged culture I grew up in. Once I internalized that it got a lot easier to practice periodic abstinance.

Well, I guess that was my whole point. What if it wasn’t hard? OK, maybe some people think a few days abstinence in the middle of the month is somehow too much to ask, but for most, that is not too bad. Aside from that, everything else (the hard stuff) falls away, and now, NFP is easy, with very little sacrifice. Would you still make the same points?

I think a lot of your second half is speculation for a lot of folks. Some truth there, for sure. But a lot of unsupported opinions from your personal point of view.

 

[PassingThru]

The Church claims that altering the act of sex is wrong- while NFP alters a sexual relationship, each individual act is left unchanged. That’s the primary distinction I’ve seen.

I agree. However, following my scenario, if ABC evolved into its most unobtrusive form, and NFP evolved into machine-determined precision, would this at least change your view of just how artificial, or “un-natural” these metholds are?

 

[tjm190]

I agree. However, following my scenario, if ABC evolved into its most unobtrusive form, and NFP evolved into machine-determined precision, would this at least change your view of just how artificial, or “un-natural” these metholds are?

My view is that neither NFP nor ABC are immoral so… no, haha.

 

[PassingThru]

My view is that neither NFP nor ABC are immoral so… no, haha.

touche!

 

[manualman]

Well, I guess that was my whole point. What if it wasn’t hard? OK, maybe some people think a few days abstinence in the middle of the month is somehow too much to ask, but for most, that is not too bad. Aside from that, everything else (the hard stuff) falls away, and now, NFP is easy, with very little sacrifice. Would you still make the same points?

I think a lot of your second half is speculation for a lot of folks. Some truth there, for sure. But a lot of unsupported opinions from your personal point of view.

That’s like asking “Would gluttony be OK if we first developed a fantastically delicious food that had no calories and didn’t make you fat?” The answer is still no.

You are absolutely correct that a lot of folks can’t relate to what I posted above. So? Either it’s true or not, regardless of what people think. A lot of fat people think they are victims of McDonalds marketing or a bad thyroid or a desk job that makes them inactive. The fact is that they (WE, actually, now that I pat my belly) eat too much and don’t excercise enough. We’ve developed disordered appetites that try to make the function of eating fulfill needs it was never intended to do. Same thing goes for the practitioner of ABC: sex wasn’t made just to give you your jollies. It was made wound up with fertility for much of our lives. Severing it from that function during the times God made us fertile perverts it the same way that making food or wine into your personal ‘cheer me up’ activity does. The effects just manifest differently.

 

[PassingThru]

That’s like asking “Would gluttony be OK if we first developed a fantastically delicious food that had no calories and didn’t make you fat?” The answer is still no.

You are absolutely correct that a lot of folks can’t relate to what I posted above. So? Either it’s true or not, regardless of what people think. A lot of fat people think they are victims of McDonalds marketing or a bad thyroid or a desk job that makes them inactive. The fact is that they (WE, actually, now that I pat my belly) eat too much and don’t excercise enough. We’ve developed disordered appetites that try to make the function of eating fulfill needs it was never intended to do. Same thing goes for the practitioner of ABC: sex wasn’t made just to give you your jollies. It was made wound up with fertility for much of our lives. Severing it from that function during the times God made us fertile perverts it the same way that making food or wine into your personal ‘cheer me up’ activity does. The effects just manifest differently.

Ehhh, I think we have drifted a bit.

You said NFP is hard. I agree. You feel the unique characteristics of NFP help you. I agree.

My question is, what if NFP was NOT hard? Lets say by the time your child (if you have any) is an adult, NFP is as I described. Simple, accurate, and with minimal abstinence time. It requires almost none of the sacrifice you mentioned. Or communication. How would you feel?

I am not going to get into your personal opinions on ABC. You dislike it. Great. That is not my point. You have made your opinions on those who use ABC quite clear.

NFP will evolve over time. I am curious as to how this will effect its adherents.

 

[manualman]

The hardness is not the crucial factor. It is only hard if one hard a disordered sexual appetite. Just like with food. For some, it isn’t hard to avoid gluttony and the resultant obesity. They (over time, most likely) developed healthy attitudes toward eating and made it a lifestyle. Human nature being what it is, that IS hard for a while. Until you’ve cultivated the virtue.

NFP by itself is not the virtue being cultivated. Chastity is. And chastity goes a lot beyond mere abstinance. NFP simply makes it possible to continue to develop the virtue of chastity without necessarily having 15 kids.

 

[Corki]

Ehhh, I think we have drifted a bit.

You said NFP is hard. I agree. You feel the unique characteristics of NFP help you. I agree.

My question is, what if NFP was NOT hard? Lets say by the time your child (if you have any) is an adult, NFP is as I described. Simple, accurate, and with minimal abstinence time. It requires almost none of the sacrifice you mentioned. Or communication. How would you feel?

I am not going to get into your personal opinions on ABC. You dislike it. Great. That is not my point. You have made your opinions on those who use ABC quite clear.

NFP will evolve over time. I am curious as to how this will effect its adherents.

What does hard/easy or simple/complex have any bearing on whether it is right or wrong? Some very good things are very easy and some bad things are very hard. Even with birth control. Using a diaphram, for example is probably “harder” than using NFP.

Sacrifice is good. But married people make sacrifices all the time. Even with your “green light” gadget, if the baby cries just as you climb into be next to the little green light, you are going to feel a sacrifice. Communication is a very nice side effect of NFP but not an essential component or result. You can have sacrifice and good communication when using ABC too – that doesn’t make it good.

If NFP were simplified as you describe, IMHO I think there might be more of a temptation to use NFP for selfish reasons but the process itself would not be any less good than the methods we have available now.

 

[PassingThru]

The hardness is not the crucial factor. It is only hard if one hard a disordered sexual appetite. Just like with food. For some, it isn’t hard to avoid gluttony and the resultant obesity. They (over time, most likely) developed healthy attitudes toward eating and made it a lifestyle. Human nature being what it is, that IS hard for a while. Until you’ve cultivated the virtue.

NFP by itself is not the virtue being cultivated. Chastity is. And chastity goes a lot beyond mere abstinance. NFP simply makes it possible to continue to develop the virtue of chastity without necessarily having 15 kids.

My understanding is that how difficult or hard the practice of NFP is has nothing to do with its acceptance. My intent was to eliminate NFP even being considered hard to help focus on what it really is that makes NFP “good”. You say it is not a “crucial” factor, so, it is then somehow a factor then, yes?

(BTW, I am focusing more on the day to day difficulties of practicing NFP, not the abstinence. We can not get rid of that, of course. All I am doing is minimizing abstinence to the minimum required for effectiveness.)

So, you are of the thinking that the sacrifice, if you will, of chastity is what distinguishes NFP? Again, I have had it explained that this line of thinking is not in line with what the Church teaches.

 

[PassingThru]

What does hard/easy or simple/complex have any bearing on whether it is right or wrong? Some very good things are very easy and some bad things are very hard. Even with birth control. Using a diaphram, for example is probably “harder” than using NFP.

I agree entirely. That is why I am trying to eliminate it from the equation!

Sacrifice is good. But married people make sacrifices all the time. Even with your “green light” gadget, if the baby cries just as you climb into be next to the little green light, you are going to feel a sacrifice. Communication is a very nice side effect of NFP but not an essential component or result. You can have sacrifice and good communication when using ABC too – that doesn’t make it good.

True true.

If NFP were simplified as you describe, IMHO I think there might be more of a temptation to use NFP for selfish reasons but the process itself would not be any less good than the methods we have available now.

OK, but why? I know the official line of the Church would remain, but how would you separate the two “end states” of NFP and ABC? As above, would it be a matter of simple sacrifice for those few days of the month? Or would it be a theological decision that you can not define in a practical world?

 

[Corki]

OK, but why? I know the official line of the Church would remain, but how would you separate the two “end states” of NFP and ABC? As above, would it be a matter of simple sacrifice for those few days of the month? Or would it be a theological decision that you can not define in a practical world?

I am not entirely sure what you are asking here. If I understand your question correctly, the difference in the two “end states” is that you either have a marital act that is (ABC) or is not (NFP) interferred with. That interference can be a drug, a barrier or a devise. Introducing an artificial element into the act itself is what makes ABC wrong. NFP does not become un-natural just because a high-tech method is used to determine which days are fertile.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hello.

The Church teaches that the “marital embrace” for married couples is a good thing.

The Church understands that, obviously, there are many days pregancy cannot occur. The Church doesn’t teach if a pregnancy cannot occur, neither should intercourse.

Also, if a pregnancy is very likely to occur, the couple is not obligated to have intercourse.

But if a couple is desiring intercourse, they need to accept the possibility of that day being fertile or not. That the act could result in a child.

A husband can’t tell his wife, “I want you, but not your fertility, make it go away.”

If there were a method of NFP as simple as you stated, why the need for ABC?

 

[PassingThru]

Hello.

The Church teaches that the “marital embrace” for married couples is a good thing.

Of course

The Church understands that, obviously, there are many days pregancy cannot occur. The Church doesn’t teach if a pregnancy cannot occur, neither should intercourse.

Absolutely, no disagreement there

Also, if a pregnancy is very likely to occur, the couple is not obligated to have intercourse.

Obviously

But if a couple is desiring intercourse, they need to accept the possibility of that day being fertile or not. That the act could result in a child.

Yes, they might want to have sex at any given time. It may be on a fertile day. Some days it could result in a child. Some days it is not a realistic possibility.

A husband can’t tell his wife, “I want you, but not your fertility, make it go away.”

Of course not. But he can say “I want you, but not today, you are fertile”. Isn’t that basically the summary of NFP?

If there were a method of NFP as simple as you stated, why the need for ABC?

Oh, absolutely. If NFP advances to my hypothetical “end” I think its popularity would increase. Aside from a few days of “not tonight, honey” it would be the best contraception (strategy, in this case) available. No health risk, reliable, simple. This is, of course, not counting an “end game” pill that has all the same advantages, theology aside.

With both methods at a “perfect state”, so to speak, on what basis would you draw your distinctions? This is where I am looking with this scenario. NFP could now be used by women in a similar fashion to the pill, in this case as a simple way to know when she can have sex without concern of pregnancy. All the complication has been removed. (The pill is usually negatively associated with the sexual revolution and its downsides, which is why I mention it). As Corki mentioned, ABC in this case would still have its “artificial” connotation attached. But what does that mean, exactly? Once these methods have converged to such a similar state, what is it that gets one an “artificial” label, and one a “natural” label? Is it just the sex during a fertile period? The “sacrificial” nature of those few days a month? Theological teaching? The possibility of ignoring the red light and having sex anyway?

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Even if periodic continence were made so simple that anyone could do it with no problems it would still be acceptable according to Church teaching. The method requiring sacrifice has nothing to do with it being in accord with natural law. The people who talk about how wonderful all of the negative aspects of NFP are are simply making lemonade when life hands them lemons.

The scenario you describe is how I believe most Catholics will begin to follow the Church’s teaching on ABC. It is like how the institution of slavery was eventually ended. Moral outrage and teaching from the Church was not enough to end slavery but a technological advance was needed that made slavery less needed and at the same time allowed better policing of the slave routes. The only thing that will happen if your ideal NFP device is invented is that most of the world will begin to follow the Church’s teaching concerning contraception.

 

[manualman]

My understanding is that how difficult or hard the practice of NFP is has nothing to do with its acceptance. My intent was to eliminate NFP even being considered hard to help focus on what it really is that makes NFP “good”. You say it is not a “crucial” factor, so, it is then somehow a factor then, yes?

(BTW, I am focusing more on the day to day difficulties of practicing NFP, not the abstinence. We can not get rid of that, of course. All I am doing is minimizing abstinence to the minimum required for effectiveness.)

So, you are of the thinking that the sacrifice, if you will, of chastity is what distinguishes NFP? Again, I have had it explained that this line of thinking is not in line with what the Church teaches.

I’m not sure I’m precisely following your reasoning. I’m not sure who explained to you that the actual abstinance during fertile days was not the big issue, but I’m 95% that person is wrong. That abstinance is precisely the difference between ABC and NFP. ABC is sex on demand utterly divorced from its natural outcome. It is like binging on rich foods and then puking it up so it doesn’t make your butt big. NFP, on the other hand requires the development of the virtue of chastity, which is much more than simply the gritting out of periodic abstinance. (just like good nutrition is about more than just refraining from eating too many Chips Ahoy!)

God didn’t make woman fertile all the time. He could have, but didn’t. His plan for human sex is BOTH about bonding and babies. The abstinance requirement during fertile times is how you keep the link between the two intact. You face your allegedly serious reason for avoiding while in the full throes of raging hormones that demand action! That’s not a coincidence! That’s how God designed humans to overcome the obvious difficulties of raising a family. The fact that ABC precisely corresponds with catastrophic drops in fertility rates wherever it becomes common dramatically illustrates this! Virtually every nation with ready access to the pill and condoms has a fertility rate of about HALF the replacement rate. The only exceptions are those nations with significant immigration rates from cultures where the pill hasn’t yet taken deep root (such as the USA, though we too just dropped below replacement rate).

God is a smart guy. I tend to think He stills knows a little bit more about how our sexuality works than we do. That was how I decided to accept church teaching. In the 10 years since, I’ve gradually experienced the ancient wisdom behind it.