Contraception and Natural Family Planning

[Yankee13]

Why is NFP allowed if one is deliberately engaging in a sex act with the intention of it being “non-procreative?” Is not this the same as contraception but without a pill or a similar device? If the end and intention in contraception and NFP are the same, namely the avoidance of children, why does the means of avoiding the pregnancy (whether natural or artificial) matter? This seems like a distinction without a difference.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

You are misinformed as to what NFP is.

Contraception = having sex, preventing the outcome

NFP = not having sex.

Its not a sin to not have sex.

 

[thewanderer]

Why is NFP allowed if one is deliberately engaging in a sex act with the intention of it being “non-procreative?” Is not this the same as contraception but without a pill or a similar device? If the end and intention in contraception and NFP are the same, namely the avoidance of children, why does the means of avoiding the pregnancy (whether natural or artificial) matter? This seems like a distinction without a difference.

The thing is that the end and intention are not the only things that determine the morality of an act, the means used can also make a difference. The Church teaches that the end does not justify the means. An example of this would be if someone wanted money to help pay for their sick mothers treatment, and, in order to get money for this they murdered their aunt who they knew was leaving them money in her will. Even though the ned and intention in murdering their aunt was to get money to pay for their mothers treatment, the action of murdering their aunt would still be wrong. The reason the Church sees NFP as being ok and not contraception is because it sees the action of actively rendering oneself infertile as an immoral means. All forms of contraception involve some form of rendering oneself infertile, and so would be immoral means to the end of avoiding pregnancy. NFP, however, merely uses abstinance to avoid pregnancy, which the Church has always taught is perfectly fine.

Does this distinction help?

 

[Yankee13]

I agree that abstinence to avoid pregnancy is perfectly understandable. In having sex only during the infertile times, however, is not the couple being “closed” to the transmission of life? They are deliberately engaging in sex at a period when conception is unlikely. Are they not “actively” seeking to frustrate the procreative good/end of intercourse?

 

[missmorgan389]

I agree that abstinence to avoid pregnancy is perfectly understandable. In having sex only during the infertile times, however, is not the couple being “closed” to the transmission of life? They are deliberately engaging in sex at a period when conception is unlikely. Are they not “actively” seeking to frustrate the procreative good/end of intercourse?

But they are never completely “closed off” from life. Egg and sperm may certainly meet infertile times, because nothing is blocking sperm and egg from meeting.

God can make anything happen, during any point of a woman’s cycle. Sure, one has a lesser chance of getting pregnant, but of course it happens.

The difference is that users of NFP welcome the child as a gift instead of a mistake.

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

But they are never completely “closed off” from life. Egg and sperm may certainly meet infertile times, because nothing is blocking sperm and egg from meeting.

God can make anything happen, during any point of a woman’s cycle. Sure, one has a lesser chance of getting pregnant, but of course it happens.

The difference is that users of NFP welcome the child as a gift instead of a mistake.

Agreed, but anyone who uses ABC knows (or should know!) that it may fail. I don’t think a married couple using ABC would necessarily see the child as a mistake. Perhaps not what they intended at that particular time, but still a gift.

 

[AthenaC]

Agreed, but anyone who uses ABC knows (or should know!) that it may fail. I don’t think a married couple using ABC would necessarily see the child as a mistake. Perhaps not what they intended at that particular time, but still a gift.

Indeed. Even unmarried people using ABC see new unplanned life as the beautiful gift it is. I see it every day.

 

[thewanderer]

I agree that abstinence to avoid pregnancy is perfectly understandable. In having sex only during the infertile times, however, is not the couple being “closed” to the transmission of life? They are deliberately engaging in sex at a period when conception is unlikely. Are they not “actively” seeking to frustrate the procreative good/end of intercourse?

Ok, the Church’s argument about this is very nuanced, so we need to be really careful to keep a couple of things in mind if we are going to understand it.

1. The morality of each action must be judged on its own merit, not on that of others related to it
2. To determine if an act is moral one needs to distinguish the intent, the means, and the circumstances and look at each seperately. If any of these are immoral then the action itself is immoral, if none are immoral then the action is fine.

Ok, so lets look at a married couple having sex during the wife’s infertile period while they have a sufficient reason to avoid children.

For this one act:

Intent: to be united with with ones spouse

Circumstances: Within the sacrament of matrimony, in a loving manner etc

Means: natural means for having sex

None of these are wrong so there is nothing wrong with this particular action.

Now, you probably feel like I am just evading the issue at hand and using semantics to get around the real question at hand. I promise, I’m not, but I do understand that it can be really hard to see how thats not what I’m doing. I’ll try my best to explain it.

As far as I can tell your problem (and that of many, many others) is that you believe that the intent in this case is not only to be united with ones spouse, but to do so without the possibility of becoming pregnant. Which intent sounds as though it is against the idea of being open to life. And isn’t that one of the necessary conditions for licit sex? That it always be open to life?

The problem here comes, I think, from mixing up the abstinance in NFP with the action of having sex when infertile. Thats why I pointed out earlier the importance of judging each action on its own merits. Just so its clear, one is never required to have sex when using NFP to avoid. Basically, all that is required is that you abstain during the wifes fertile period. That is what constitutes using NFP to avoid, not having sex while the wife is infertile, that is a completely seperate action which usually accompanies the use of NFP to avoid. (Its also why so many people try to show the difference by saying that NFP is just the lack of an action, it really is just abstinance). So the intent of not having a child, which you want to link with having sex while infertile, actually doesn’t belong to that action, instead it belongs to the abstinance during the fertile period. You yourself have agreed that there is no problem with abstaining for the sake of avoiding pregnancy, so there is nothing wrong with this action either.

I’m not sure if I’m being very clear… its a difficult issue to talk about because the distinctions involved are pretty nuanced. Does this help you understand any better? Am I at least understanding your difficulty?

 

[thewanderer]

Maybe another way to put it is this.

If they were deliberately having sex for the sake of avoiding pregnancy, as in, the reason they are having sex is so that they can avoid becoming pregnant, then that would be immoral (not to mention mind-numbingly idiotic as having sex, even when infertile is not exaclty going to make you more likely to not get pregnant).

When one talks about the intent of an action for the purpose of determining the morality of an action, what they are talking about is the very reason that you decide to perform that action, not other intentions you might also happen to have. Yes, it is possible to have more than one intention for a given action, (as in, a couple, knowing they are fertile can have sex both because they want to show their love for each other and because they want to have a child), but unless it is actually one of the reasons you are performing some action, then it is not comsidered the ‘intent’ of that particular action.

 

[ABEACHGIRL]

NFP is very effective when used correctly, just like other forms of birth control. Unlike them however, NFP does not actually create a barrier, physical or otherwise, as others do. With NFP the couple is not introducing an unnatural barrier into the situation. Other forms of birth control do this.

 

[Corki]

I agree that abstinence to avoid pregnancy is perfectly understandable. In having sex only during the infertile times, however, is not the couple being “closed” to the transmission of life? They are deliberately engaging in sex at a period when conception is unlikely. Are they not “actively” seeking to frustrate the procreative good/end of intercourse?

There is no requirement that any sexual act have a procreative “end”. The teaching of the Church is that each act of marital intimacy be both unitive and ordered to procreation. “Ordered to procreation” means that the manner in which the act is done is the same manner that is used to procreate.

The end of marital acts is fecudity. Fecundity is basically fertility. There is no requirement that marital sexual encounters be fecund. Being ordered to procreation is independent of fecundity.

Contraception makes the marital act no longer ordered to procreation. It either alters the body or puts something in between the spouses. A couple who is using NFP is having relations that are ordered to procreation, even on infertile days.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You are misinformed as to what NFP is.

Contraception = having sex, preventing the outcome

NFP = not having sex.

Its not a sin to not have sex.

Sorry, this is wrong. NFP is having sex at the time the woman is not fertile, thus preventing the outcome. Yes, there would have to be “fasting” on days the woman is fertile. But given a woman if fertile about 4-6 days a month, the couple is free to have sex the other 24 days.

 

[ConstantineTG]

But they are never completely “closed off” from life. Egg and sperm may certainly meet infertile times, because nothing is blocking sperm and egg from meeting.

Yes there is. The fact that the egg is not there.

God can make anything happen, during any point of a woman’s cycle. Sure, one has a lesser chance of getting pregnant, but of course it happens.

I know this toes the line of “testing God,” but a broken condom can also be construed to mean that.

The difference is that users of NFP welcome the child as a gift instead of a mistake.

Not everyone who uses ABCs think that way. Some just want to space their children, the same reasons couples use NFP.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Why is NFP allowed if one is deliberately engaging in a sex act with the intention of it being “non-procreative?” Is not this the same as contraception but without a pill or a similar device? If the end and intention in contraception and NFP are the same, namely the avoidance of children, why does the means of avoiding the pregnancy (whether natural or artificial) matter? This seems like a distinction without a difference.

Post # 8 is very solid, study it. No woman is a " baby machine, " she has a right to some peace in her life. The marriage act must always be open to having children. If NFP is used it must be used with a valid reason, it cannot be used to put off pregancy indefinitely. The Church values fruitful marriages, so does God. So talk it over with your priest if you wonder if you are making too free use of NFP. You can always abstain for a period, this can be good to strengthen you both. After all, you both will be single some day!

 

[ConstantineTG]

Post # 8 is very solid, study it. No woman is a " baby machine, " she has a right to some peace in her life. The marriage act must always be open to having children. If NFP is used it must be used with a valid reason, it cannot be used to put off pregancy indefinitely. The Church values fruitful marriages, so does God. So talk it over with your priest if you wonder if you are making too free use of NFP. You can always abstain for a period, this can be good to strengthen you both. After all, you both will be single some day!

But again, the same thing can be said of ABCs. You can use condoms to put off pregnancy for a year or two. We’re making the false conclusion here that anyone who uses ABCs do not want children at all. A lot of people I know who use ABCs are using it to space children, many of whom already have one or two.

 

[thewanderer]

But again, the same thing can be said of ABCs. You can use condoms to put off pregnancy for a year or two. We’re making the false conclusion here that anyone who uses ABCs do not want children at all. A lot of people I know who use ABCs are using it to space children, many of whom already have one or two.

You’re right that it is wrong to assume that everyone who uses ABC does not intend to ever have children, but the difference in the morality of ABC’s and NFP as the Church sees it is not based upon intent, rather it is based upon the means used. You might disagree with the idea that the Church’s reasonss for concluding that the means of ABC are immoral, but you should still be able to recognize why the Church makes such a distinction.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

But again, the same thing can be said of ABCs. You can use condoms to put off pregnancy for a year or two. We’re making the false conclusion here that anyone who uses ABCs do not want children at all. A lot of people I know who use ABCs are using it to space children, many of whom already have one or two.

Have absolutely no idea what ABC’s are. But no good Christian of any denomination, or even a good Pagan for that matter, is allowed to use any artificial device, medicine, condom,spilling the seed, etc. just to keep from having children. Period. NFP is allowed for brief periods if you and your husband have a good reason - not that you just don’t want to be bothered with children. What is so difficult to understand about that? I’m not debating you, I’m telling you how you can save your soul!!

Talk to a good priest if you don’t believe me.

:banghead:

 

[choose_to_love]

@linus: NFP can be used indefinitely, provided the serious reason to postpone pregnancy continues to exist. Suppose your bride had serious heart problems in her early 30’s, such that a pregnancy would be dangerous to her life. I think a couple could prayerfully decide to use NFP indefinitely until heart problems either resolved or menopause. It is right in Humanae Vitae, paragraph 10.

ABC’s: beside the alphabet, in this context it means “artificial birth control”.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Sorry, this is wrong. NFP is having sex at the time the woman is not fertile, thus preventing the outcome. Yes, there would have to be “fasting” on days the woman is fertile. But given a woman if fertile about 4-6 days a month, the couple is free to have sex the other 24 days.

It’s called natural family planning for a reason.

NFP means you’re not having sex when the woman is fertile. Again, it’s not a sin to not have sex, as opposed to having sex whenever you feel like it or all the time and using a physical, artificial barrier in order to prevent conception. In one instance you’re still performing the act while holding back it’s purpose. In the other instance of NFP, you’re just not performing the act at all during that time. Huge difference.

 

[thewanderer]

Sorry, this is wrong. NFP is having sex at the time the woman is not fertile, thus preventing the outcome. Yes, there would have to be “fasting” on days the woman is fertile. But given a woman if fertile about 4-6 days a month, the couple is free to have sex the other 24 days.

Actually… thats not true. Take for example, a couplle where the father often travels and they also have a serious reason to avoid. The wife charts so that she can know when she is fertile and when she isn’t. When the husband comes back home for a short break between business trips it is during her infertile time so they abstain, it just so happens to work out that for the couple of months they needed to avoid pregnancy he was never home during her infertile time and so they never had sex. Are you really going to say that this couple wasn’t practicing NFP to avoid just because they didn’t have sex while the wife was infertile? If you’re not willing to say that then you have to admit that NFP does not necessarily include sexual relations during a womans infertile phase.