Contraception hypothetical

[Timbothefiveth]

But the benefit of sentience, is that we can alter a natural process so that we are benefited as a whole

You can’t control your immune system, and using birth control does not benifit anyone. In fact, it reduces them to mere objects for gratification.

If one does not desire the results of fertility then yes, it makes sense that it should be counteracted.

By actively denying God’s designs?

And I don’t see how a comparison to the invoulantary immune system threatening your life is comparable to artificially denying the non-life-threatening purpose of a voulantary action

 

[tjm190]

You can’t control your immune system, and using birth control does not benifit anyone. In fact, it reduces them to mere objects for gratification.

You can’t control any system of your body when it’s “in play”, the immune system just happens to be active at all times in a healthy body. And the avoiding of a consequence one (or a group) does not want is certainly beneficial. And contraceptive sex has not been shown to be any less unitive than other forms of sex, despite the use of flowery terms.

 

[tjm190]

You can’t control your immune system, and using birth control does not benifit anyone. In fact, it reduces them to mere objects for gratification.

Copypastaing yourself?

By actively denying God’s designs?

And I don’t see how a comparison to the invoulantary immune system threatening your life is comparable to artificially denying the non-life-threatening purpose of a voulantary action

God designed the immune system to- and the reproductive parts of your body are no less involuntary once they have been employed.
And the immune system does not threaten your life directly- it only does so as the direct result of you (or rather, your doctor) doing something beyond unnatural, something your immune system does not fully understand the scope of.

 

[Good_Daughter]

If one does not desire the results of fertility then yes, it makes sense that it should be counteracted. God gave me my immune system which was built to destroy all foreign entities in my body- not taking into account that I may one require one of those to survive. If you had an organ transplant, your immune system would recognize that new organ as a call to action. Your immune systems destruction of said organ is what it is meant to do! Any action taken to prevent this could not be said to be “fixing” the immune system, it’s doing its job perfectly well. Yet immunosuppressants are needed- why? Because the immune system doesn’t have the whole picture. It doesn’t take the entire situation into account when it decides to attack your new organ. But the benefit of sentience, is that we can alter a natural process so that we are benefited as a whole, even if it is doing it’s job perfectly well.
The same can be said of the reproductive system. The reproductive system wants to make people- and it does a good job. And that is fulfills an essential role- I mean, think about it- we are, right now, at this moment roughly 70 years from extinction as a species. Without reproduction, no human on the face of the Earth would exist, and soon we would cease to exist. But the reproductive system in it’s attempts to ensure the continuity of our species, does not take individual circumstances into account- but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. We don’t always want the reproductive system to do it’s job, just as we don’t always want the immune system to do it’s job, even when it’s doing this job perfectly well.
If God is to be offended by contraception, then why not by other times when the processes he has created our subjected to our will?

If your immune system, doing what it’s designed to do, is attacking an organ, you no longer have a healthy body. Likewise, if your reproductive system, doing what it’s designed to do, is causing sickness, you no longer have a healthy body and medical intervention is needed, no argument from Catholic teaching there.

Here’s the tricky part: It’s hard to compare the two systems. We don’t do anything with our immune system but try to keep it healthy in the context of overall bodily health, which includes shutting it down when it poses a threat. We do the same with the reproductive system, but it has a part two where we actively use the system for other purposes. In that way, the reproductive system is far more easily (though not perfectly) compared to the digestive system. Maybe you could add an analogy in that area.

Pregnancy is not the result of fertility any more than nutrient absorption is the result of hunger. Pregnancy is the result of sex in conjunction with timing and fertility. Sex is good, timing is our choice, and fertility is good. So why do we hammer away at our fertility, a good, (which, for couples, exists only a fraction of the time of infertility) to change the outcome of sex? It’s an easy target and a money maker, I guess.

We’re free to subject the processes God has created to our will when those processes are causing us harm. The offense with contraception is that it is used to remedy something that’s not hurting us.

 

[tjm190]

If your immune system, doing what it’s designed to do, is attacking an organ, you no longer have a healthy body. Likewise, if your reproductive system, doing what it’s designed to do, is causing sickness, you no longer have a healthy body and medical intervention is needed, no argument from Catholic teaching there.

Your immune system’s job is to attack all foreign objects. If you have chosen to make a foreign object essential to your survival, that is no fault of your immune system. If you have no moral issue with altering a system in your body (as I don’t… or do), then go right ahead and do so.

Here’s the tricky part: It’s hard to compare the two systems. We don’t do anything with our immune system but try to keep it healthy in the context of overall bodily health, which includes shutting it down when it poses a threat. We do the same with the reproductive system, but it has a part two where we actively use the system for other purposes. In that way, the reproductive system is far more easily (though not perfectly) compared to the digestive system. Maybe you could add an analogy in that area.

I already did something similar with the dual purposes of eating (fulfill our appetite and nutrition) and it’s relation to diet foods- I’ll dig it up later but I’m about to walk out the door.

Pregnancy is not the result of fertility any more than nutrient absorption is the result of hunger. Pregnancy is the result of sex in conjunction with timing and fertility. Sex is good, timing is our choice, and fertility is good. So why do we hammer away at our fertility, a good, (which, for couples, exists only a fraction of the time of infertility) to change the outcome of sex? It’s an easy target and a money maker, I guess.

But sense one out come of sex (children) is not always desired while the others (the unitive and fulfilling of the “sexual appetite”) may still be desired, then it makes sense to “hammer away” at the undesired effect.

We’re free to subject the processes God has created to our will when those processes are causing us harm. The offense with contraception is that it is used to remedy something that’s not hurting us.

An outcome seen as negative can be considered to be “hurting us”

 

[gardenswithkids]

Agreed, but the same can be said for anything- my point was directed at your prior claim that contraceptive users actively sought to deny the will of God…

I don’t recall that I ever made the claim or even hinted that they “actively sought” to deny the will of God. That’s a judgment of the heart and motives, and I try never to do that. You make alot of assumptions. They may take an “action” that denies the will of God, but I realize that sometimes people act in ignorance or in error. Noting that contraception is not part of God’s will for marriage is completely different from saying that those who use contraception “actively seek to deny the will of God.”

Below is a brief synopsis of our discussion thus far. You asked how using a condom denies God’s will. Your make the assumption that God’s will for sexuality only relates to the reproductive aspects of sexuality. I have pointed out repeatedly that God included with sex a unitive aspect. I also quoted and linked Church documents that say the pro-creative and unitive function are united and that interfering with one function interferes with the other.

You asked for scientific proof. I wrote I doubted that there is “scientific proof” but point to some empirical evidence/observations that supported that theology. I provided links to a non-religious study examining the divorce rate in the twentieth century which attributed the increase in-part to contraception. You dismissed that scietific study as it wasn’t a true experiment. I asked that you provide scietific proof that contraception was okay or good for marriage and you stated you didn’t need to prove that.

We got back to discussing God’s will. We both recognize that sometimes couples discern that it is best to avoid pregnancy. I even agreed with you that sometimes couples use contraception with the desire to accept God’s will. Couples that desire to do God’s will may sometimes feel they need to avoid pregnancy, but the Biblical view of children and pregnancy within marriage never compares pregnancy to bad things. Throughout this thread you have compared pregnancy to bad things like falling off a cliff, tripping on shoelaces and the rejection of transplanted organs. That is not the Biblical view of pregnancy and children. I will now once again suggest that you reflect and pray about how you view pregnancy and children.

Perhaps others may be able to convince you that the Church is correct. I think what really might help you understand this teaching is serious prayer and maturity. You might also be the type of person who needs to learn the hard way. Prayers for you.

You are unmarried. At this point, I wonder why you think you need to fully grasp the Church teachings on a matter than does not yet affect you? The Church teaches contraception is wrong. At this stage in your life, this teaching is somewhat a moot point for you. Since your profile shows you’re Catholc and you profess to believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church*, I would expect that you might at least have respect for the teaching authority given through Apostolic Succession even when you don’t fully comprehend something, (*unless you proclaim the Niceen Creed from a Protestant perspective. I don’t hold Protestants to Catholic standards,) The Catholic Church holds up for married couples a similar standard of chastity that it holds up for singles. Rather than focussing on chastity within marriage, it might better serve you to make sure you know the standards of chastity expected for you as a single person.

 

[tjm190]

I don’t recall that I ever made the claim or even hinted that they “actively sought” to deny the will of God. That’s a judgment of the heart and motives, and I try never to do that. You make alot of assumptions. They may take an “action” that denies the will of God, but I realize that sometimes people act in ignorance or in error. Noting that contraception is not part of God’s will for marriage is completely different from saying that those who use contraception “actively seek to deny the will of God.”

You said that when they use contraception they “say” a list of things to God. One of them was disregard for His will.

Below is a brief synopsis of our discussion thus far. You asked how using a condom denies God’s will. Your make the assumption that God’s will for sexuality only relates to the reproductive aspects of sexuality. I have pointed out repeatedly that God included with sex a unitive aspect. I also quoted and linked Church documents that say the pro-creative and unitive function are united and that interfering with one function interferes with the other.

I made no such assumption. I’m aware of the unitive function of sex, and as I recall I brought it up to show why sex with the possibility of conception reduced still served a valid purpose. I asked what led the church to this conclusion/what information supported it.

You asked for scientific proof. I wrote I doubted that there is “scientific proof” but point to some emperical evidence that supported that theology. I provided links to a non-religious study examining the divorce rate in the twentieth century which attributed the increase in-part to contraception. You dismissed that scietific study as it wasn’t a true experiment. I asked that you provide scietific proof that contraception was okay or good for marriage and you stated you didn’t need to prove that.

Human emotion is well understood by psychological and neurological study- a difference in an emotional bond created could be proven, but as of yet it doesn’t even exist on the hypothetical level. Studies can only establish correlation, and since I wasn’t denying correlation at the time I found your linking of it perplexing. The burden of proof goes on those attempting to add an attribute to something. If a protest claims the Church is the antichrist, the burden is not on you to prove him wrong- it’s on him/her to prove their claim.

We got back to discussing God’s will. We both recognize that sometimes couples discern that it is best to avoid pregnancy. I even agreed with you that sometimes couples use contraception with good motives and with the desire to do God’s will. Couples that desire to do God’s will may wish to avoid pregnancy, but the Biblical view of children and pregnancy within marriage does not compare pregnancy to bad things. Throughout this thread you have compared pregnancy to bad things like falling off a cliff, tripping on shoelaces and rejection of transplants. That is not the Biblical view of pregnancy and children. I will now once again suggest that you reflect and pray about how you view pregnancy and children.

I’ve compared an undesired pregnancy to other things people do not desire. Human desires determine whether or not they try to avoid an outcome. A conception that will result in a child that the family is unable to properly care for for any reason is certainly undesirable.

Perhaps others may be able to convince you that the Church is correct. I think what really might help you understand this teaching is serious prayer and maturity.

Sounds fun

You are unmarried. At this point, I wonder why you think you need to fully grasp the Church teachings on a matter than does not yet affect you? The Church teaches contraception is wrong. At this stage in your life, this teaching is somewhat a moot point for you. Since your profile shows you’re Catholc and you profess to believe in the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church*, I would expect that you might at least have respect for the teaching authority given through Apostolic Succession even when you don’t fully comprehend something, (*unless you proclaim the Niceen Creed from a Protestant perspective. I don’t hold Protestants to Catholic standards,) The Catholic Church holds up for married couples a similar standard of chastity that it holds up for singles. Rather than focussing on chastity within marriage, it might better serve you to make sure you know the standards of chastity expected for you as a single person.

If I believe something is going to effect me in the future, it’s best to not procrastinate. And if you want to talk about Apostolic Succession, with the bishops being the successors of the apostles, I remind you that not all bishops are in agreement with the Church’s position.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I already did something similar with the dual purposes of eating (fulfill our appetite and nutrition) and it’s relation to diet foods- I’ll dig it up later but I’m about to walk out the door.

If you feel like discussing it again. If not, no big deal.

But sense one out come of sex (children) is not always desired while the others (the unitive and fulfilling of the “sexual appetite”) may still be desired, then it makes sense to “hammer away” at the undesired effect.

If the “undesired effect” is children, then by all means, a couple should avoid pregnancy.

An outcome seen as negative can be considered to be “hurting us”

Yes, but if the negative outcome to which you refer is pregnancy, remember pregnancy is an outcome of sex, not fertility.

 

[tjm190]

If you feel like discussing it again. If not, no big deal.

Basically the analogy was that diet foods remove/ seek to remove the nutrition aspect of eating when it is not seen as beneficial while leaving the fulfilling of the appetite intact, just as contraception alters one aspect of sex (the probability of conception) so that the other might be fulfilled without incurring the result of the former aspect.

If the “undesired effect” is children, then by all means, a couple should avoid pregnancy.

Yes, but if the negative outcome to which you refer is pregnancy, remember pregnancy is an outcome of sex, not fertility.
Well it requires both sex and fertility- so it’s an outcome of sex given fertility.

 

[Corki]

Basically the analogy was that diet foods remove/ seek to remove the nutrition aspect of eating when it is not seen as beneficial while leaving the fulfilling of the appetite intact, just as contraception alters one aspect of sex (the probability of conception) so that the other might be fulfilled without incurring the result of the former aspect.

In my opinion, this analogy falls short because eating is not Sacramental. Sex between a husband and wife is a renewal of the sacramental bond of matrimony. So, yes eating diet foods is an example of how you can separate two aspects of the same activity but does nothing to explain why it would be wrong to do so with the marital act.

 

[kage_ar]

In my opinion, this analogy falls short because eating is not Sacramental. Sex between a husband and wife is a renewal of the sacramental bond of matrimony. So, yes eating diet foods is an example of how you can separate two aspects of the same activity but does nothing to explain why it would be wrong to do so with the marital act.

If a person only ate “diet food”, food with little or no nutritional value, they would get sick and eventually die.

The anaolgy that makes sense to me is that of eating in a healthy, eating less, eating nutritious food and not giving in to every single craving of the body - that is a marriage that does not contracept.

Contraception = binging and purging. Eat the food, vomit it up.

 

[Corki]

If a person only ate “diet food”, food with little or no nutritional value, they would get sick and eventually die.

The anaolgy that makes sense to me is that of eating in a healthy, eating less, eating nutritious food and not giving in to every single craving of the body - that is a marriage that does not contracept.

I like that one.

Contraception = binging and purging. Eat the food, vomit it up

Plan B coming immediately to mind.

 

[tjm190]

In my opinion, this analogy falls short because eating is not Sacramental. Sex between a husband and wife is a renewal of the sacramental bond of matrimony. So, yes eating diet foods is an example of how you can separate two aspects of the same activity but does nothing to explain why it would be wrong to do so with the marital act.

So because you use flowery terms to describe sex, altering it becomes sinful in a way that can not be logically demonstrated in other scenarios?

 

[Corki]

So because you use flowery terms to describe sex, altering it becomes sinful in a way that can not be logically demonstrated in other scenarios?

No analogy is perfect. I wasn’t using “flowery language”. I just pointed out where the analogy fell short.

 

[tjm190]

If a person only ate “diet food”, food with little or no nutritional value, they would get sick and eventually die.

Just as we as a species would die out if we only used contraceptive sex

The anaolgy that makes sense to me is that of eating in a healthy, eating less, eating nutritious food and not giving in to every single craving of the body - that is a marriage that does not contracept.

There’s an enormous difference between an all out hedonistic couple that has sex as much as their bodies will allow it and then some and a couple that uses contraception in moderation.

Contraception = binging and purging. Eat the food, vomit it up.

More like the morning after pill. And a surgical abortion would be some murderous form of liposuction.

 

[tjm190]

No analogy is perfect. I wasn’t using “flowery language”. I just pointed out where the analogy fell short.

Sex between a husband and wife is a renewal of the sacramental bond of matrimony

Do I smell Febreeze?

I’ve heard time and time again that altering a functional system that God gave us for our own God is sinful as justification for contraception being sinful, yet I have yet to see that logic successfully applied anywhere else.

 

[Tosk]

Do I smell Febreeze?

I’ve heard time and time again that altering a functional system that God gave us for our own God is sinful as justification for contraception being sinful, yet I have yet to see that logic successfully applied anywhere else.

It is altering that system so that it can no longer achieve its primary end. It is applied to other systems of the body too. For example it would be wrong for someone with body dysmorphic disorder to take off a limb because they want to be an amputee. Taking off a healthy limb would frustrate its natural end and be against Natural Law. You just don’t see very many people who want to mangle their body outside of the reproductive system.

now granted, the teaching against contraception isn’t the most obvious thing from first examining Natural Law. The teaching against contraception requires you to follow many many fine points and distinctions to a seemingly strange conclusion. I think the best thing is just to accept it on authority.

 

[tjm190]

It is altering that system so that it can no longer achieve its primary end. It is applied to other systems of the body too. For example it would be wrong for someone with body dysmorphic disorder to take off a limb because they want to be an amputee. Taking off a healthy limb would frustrate its natural end and be against Natural Law. You just don’t see very many people who want to mangle their body outside of the reproductive system.

The primary end of eating is nutrition. Eating food with no nutrition is frustrates the digestive system just as much as a condom frustrates the reproductive system.

now granted, the teaching against contraception isn’t the most obvious thing from first examining Natural Law. The teaching against contraception requires you to follow many many fine points and distinctions to a seemingly strange conclusion. I think the best thing is just to accept it on authority.

Hmm… “It’s complicated, just take our word for it” vs. “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense , reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

I choose the latter

 

[Tosk]

The primary end of eating is nutrition. Eating food with no nutrition is frustrates the digestive system just as much as a condom frustrates the reproductive system.

What kind of food has absolutely no nutrition? to me that would mean it isn’t food at all.

I also think you are confusing ordinary use vs. contrary to use. The ordinary use of the digestive system is absorbing nutrition but that doesn’t mean it is the only use. You can use your digestive system for something other than its ordinary use, like taking medicine, as long as it doesn’t frustrate the natural purpose of that system.

Walking on your hands is another example. Walking on your hands isn’t the ordinary use of your hand but it isn’t contrary to the use of your hand because it does nothing to frustrate the natural end. Now taking your hand and smashing it in a vise would frustrate the natural end and be against natural law. you can read more about natural ends and natural law here

Hmm… “It’s complicated, just take our word for it” vs. “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense , reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

I choose the latter

No, I am just saying be really careful how you place your bet. If you leave the Church over contraception where would you go? Atheism is a very poor bet because there is no way to win anything, Judaism is also against ABC so that doesn’t help, and Islam requires you to give up beer!!!

 

[tjm190]

What kind of food has absolutely no nutrition? to me that would mean it isn’t food at all

And contraception still allows for a chance of conception, just at a reduced value.

I also think you are confusing ordinary use vs. contrary to use. The ordinary use of the digestive system is absorbing nutrition but that doesn’t mean it is the only use. You can use your digestive system for something other than its ordinary use, like taking medicine, as long as it doesn’t frustrate the natural purpose of that system.

So one can actively seek to avoid one purpose of a system without being “contrary” to the purpose of that system?
You seem to be forming an argument against permanent means of contraception- but if contraception is an “intrinsic evil” then all means of contraception must be immoral, regardless of their permanence.

Walking on your hands is another example. Walking on your hands isn’t the ordinary use of your hand but it isn’t contrary to the use of your hand because it does nothing to frustrate the natural end. Now taking your hand and smashing it in a vise would frustrate the natural end and be against natural law. you can read more about natural ends and natural law here

Because that would render your hand useless. A condom does not render your reproductive system useless.

No, I am just saying be really careful how you place your bet. If you leave the Church over contraception where would you go? Atheism is a very poor bet because there is no way to win anything, Judaism is also against ABC so that doesn’t help, and Islam requires you to give up beer!!!

Given that Catholic bishops have openly challenged the church’s position on ABC I think I’ll be fine- therosarium.ca/indextemps/winnipeg.html