Contraception hypothetical

[tjm190]

For some.

I’m reminded of the story of the boiling pot. A parent tells the kid that it’s hot and it will burn and hurt. The kid never, ever really believes it until he touches it himself…

Now lets say the pot takes 20 min to get hot enough to burn. The kid touches the pot once every min until finally he gets burned. What did the kid learn? 19 out of 20 times nothing bad happens? Or oops, if you do that you can get burned. But of the first 19 times he didn’t get burned. So he thinks the intial warning was a lie, then the truth becomes apparent.

I remember being told not to touch the heater in my house because it would burn me by my parents. It made sense that since it was hot I would be burned by touching- although I lacked the ability to think about in these terms, my parents logic seemed sound so I accepted the conclusion

Oh, sorry, I’m slow sometimes. If the TOB instruction you recieved was adequate AND you understood it, you wouldn’t have asked your question. You would have already known the answer. I’m not sure which you experienced. A poor or watered down version of TOB or an incomplete understanding of what they were trying to tell you.

Reaching a different conclusion does not imply an incomplete understanding, our own beliefs on the matter aside.

And lastly, respectfully, TOB is somewhat a way to live. A choice you make. If you have no cause or desire to live according to the guidelines, then not one of us will be able to convince you to do so. No more that we can convince an athiest that a God exists.

I still encourage you to take a(nother) look at TOB. Christopher West focuses on the sexual aspects of TOB. Others don’t stress that as much. TOB is more than sexual ethics. It’s a model to how to live and love.

Peace to you and for your journey. If I can help with pointers, let me know.

Not really for the God statement. God is a matter of faith (an axiom)- and if TOB is a natural conclusion of my axioms, no more assumptions would be required.

Googling Christopher West led me to his page, I’ll browse around and save some of his relevant articles to be read in the near future.

 

[tjm190]

Hi again tjm,

I don’t mean to belabor the point, but… you don’t have a correct understanding the relationship between correlation and causation if you automatically dismiss correlation simply because it is “often completely meaningless.” “Often” does not mean the same as “always.” I quoted and highlighted some parts from the wikipedia site you linked. Before scientists conduct studies they often look at correlation between things. From those observations they form hypothesis which they use in the design of experiments. Just because a scientific experiment has not yet proven something conclusively does not automatically mean it is not true and should therefore be dismissed. It *may *mean the subject has either not been studied or has not been studied enough to draw absolute conclusions. You asked for “scientific evidence” on a subject that, quite frankly, is very difficult to conduct scientific experiments on.

I’m not saying that contraception is 100% certainly not the cause of higher divorce rates- but I’m saying the correlation, while not meaningless, does not by itself make a convincing case against contraception.

 

[tjm190]

I read one of Mr. West’s articles and am already turned off due to his use of the very same fallacy I’ve been dealing with here. An entire article dedicated to the belief that contraception is the cause of the negative moral acts that arose in the 21st century? Good lord…
(christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=95)

 

[newbetx]

I read one of Mr. West’s articles and am already turned off due to his use of the very same fallacy I’ve been dealing with here. An entire article dedicated to the belief that contraception is the cause of the negative moral acts that arose in the 21st century? Good lord…
(christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=95)

CW can appear over the top. And you are correct. Contraception and abortion have been around for centuries. What West is pointing out is that since the 50’s and 60’s America is different and the changes in acceptability in the 20th century brings us to where we are today. It’s a subtle difference but basic to his emotional stance on the subject.

I assume you know that he was about to leave the church because of his unwillingness to accept the doctrine about birth control.

BTW, I don’t like some of his on-line commentary either.

 

[newbetx]

But before, the mere act of perverting a process God designed was mortally sinful- at times, it may be more responsible for a couple not to conceive, but their sexual desires don’t wain. Which brings us back to the eating scenario. Should a person (or couple) who knows it would be irresponsible to take part in a natural process as it was created but still feels the natural urge attached to this process alter the process to fulfill their appetites or simply deny themselves? (And just like a person who only ate synthetic low nutrition foods would die, so would our species if we only practiced sex with contraceptives- but that does not mean these things have no place.)

Conception is a very serious thing to consider. And yes, a couple IS responsible for making that decision. It’s key to the marital process. Denial is a form a sacrafice. We are called to sacrafice ourselves for others. Especially our spouses.

Natural urges are just that. Something good that God has created but something that we must keep in check. Like anger. It’s good to get angry at unjust things. It’s not good to get angry at a child and smack it across the room. We have to be careful how we react to our urges.

Key issue is that our culture has reduced the value of sex. It’s seriousness. Almost reducing it to entertainment. I won’t deny that contraceptive sex MAY be, for a time, unitive, but eventually, in my experience, it looses that value. It becomes something to fight about rather than look forward to. Mutual use of one another works for a time. Some longer than others. Some would rather not worry about conception and while they may not end up in divorce or an affair, it does not mean that they didn’t miss out on something. Like I said, NFP is work. Many choose not to take that path. Many of those don’t have a clue why their marriages failed, either.

Today’s culture would claim that we have a basic right to have sex. Anytime, anywhere and with anyone. TOB explains “in the beginning, it was not so.” Why is this important? Because if we want a relationship like Adam had with Eve, we must understand how we are made for one another to love, not be used by the other.

And please don’t think that I don’t understand how an NFP couple might not still be using each other. It certainly can happen. That’s not the point. The bigger picture is still out there. ALL of TOB needs to be understood.

We’re already in a discussion about how there is nothing to suggest that sex with contraction is any less unitive.

Well, you say. My experience is otherwise. But you don’t need to believe me or the millions of troubled couples the church has had to counsel on this subject.

If contraceptive sex is so good, why do couples still fight about it? I’ll tell you why. Eventually, one feels used by it. What seemed like a freeing mechanism becomes a trap. At that point, it’s no longer unitive. It becomes divisive.

Paul says, quite specially, that the ONLY reason to abstain from sex is to devote yourself to prayer, which implies all other causes to be immoral. If a process NECESSITATES periods of abstinence for other reasons, that process can be said to be immoral as well. Oh, and I’m unmarried.

The quote was meant for married couples. Not singles. In fact Paul suggested that no one get married unless they couldn’t control themselves. Of course not being able to control oneself is no reason to marry another, either.

And there are many other reasons to abstain. Like being gone for long periods of time. Already having the size family you can manage. Illness. Many other reasons. Prayer helps one past the natural urge. Prayer is an exceptional substitute for focus on oneself. Be it for sexual urges or other reasons.

I remember being told not to touch the heater in my house because it would burn me by my parents. It made sense that since it was hot I would be burned by touching- although I lacked the ability to think about in these terms, my parents logic seemed sound so I accepted the conclusion

Reaching a different conclusion does not imply an incomplete understanding, our own beliefs on the matter aside.

Many here feel the same way about church teaching as you did about your parents. It’s not all bad, you know. I, like many however, look for proof. So far, the church’s 2000 years of introspection and study has trumped all my arguments. It’s not that I don’t still have questions, I just now believe the answers are out there. I just need to go find the proper discussion.

Not really for the God statement. God is a matter of faith (an axiom)- and if TOB is a natural conclusion of my axioms, no more assumptions would be required.

All aspects of faith requires study and proof to some people. While it’s easy for me to accept the existance of God, it was not so for many other aspects of the Catholic faith. Digging into them only makes my sense that the Catholic faith IS the Truth stronger. The same is true for many anti-Catholics out there. The more they dig, the more they search for the Truth, the more they come to the Church. Why? These are pretty scholarly people.

And it’s not just Catholics, BTW that are discovering contraception is unbiblical. Read about Kimberly Hahn.

OK, another author and book suggestion. As a single, you might get more out of Ms. Bonacci. She’s still single and works with single youth. It’s a long book in a Q&A format and some of the same messages are delivered multiple times. I wish it was more concise, but worth the read, anyway.
amazon.com/Real-Love-Answers-Questions-Marriage/dp/0898706130/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201202321&sr=8-3

 

[Bob_Crowley]

You’re hurting my brain…They know God set up sex for procreation, yet they take steps to prevent it? Because they’re demanding He miraculously override their efforts? Could you be more in depth about the situation?

If God set up sex only for procreation, then why is it that humans alone, as far as I know, are able to “enjoy” sex almost at any time, whereas animals have definite mating seasons? Do you really believe God wanted us to breed like rabbits, in the sense that every act of intercourse in a species should have only one end in mind, and this in a species which makes more demands on the environment in which it lives should be had with only one purpose in mind?

While you’re at it, show me how we’re supposed to cope with 400 million more people every five years to feed, house, educate, and provide expensive and energy consuming infrastructure.

The couple using a condom or a contraceptive pill is obviously seeking to enjoy intercourse with a much reduced liklihood of having a child from that particular act. In the case of a married couple, so what?

 

[gardenswithkids]

I’m not saying that contraception is 100% certainly not the cause of higher divorce rates- but I’m saying the correlation, while not meaningless, does not by itself make a convincing case against contraception.

I was not simply siting the increased divorce rate. I mentioned the general break-down of marriage and the family. That includes increase in sexual activity outside of marriage,increase in the out-of-wedlock pregnancy rate, absense of many fathers from the family, etc. etc.

You wrote about TOB and being turned off to Christopher West. I’m not a big Christopher West fan either. I have nothing against the man, but I prefer Church sources rather than relying on someone else’s translation of them. With that said, rather than relying on only Christopher West or posts from internet forum members, I suggest you read Church documents on this subject. Here’s a link to Humanae Vitae and a few quotes (with some highlights by me) that better state what I tried to write earlier. ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM

1. That teaching, often set forth by the magisterium, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning. Indeed, by its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while most closely uniting husband and wife, capacitates them for the generation of new lives, according to laws inscribed in the very being of man and of woman. By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its ordination towards man’s most high calling to parenthood. We believe that the men of our day are particularly capable of seeing the deeply reasonable and human character of this fundamental principle.
2. Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based, **if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificial birth control. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. **Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law…

In the original post you asked about a hypothetical situation. Unfortunately, this is not a hypothetical situation for many couples. It is an often repeated idea spread in Christian circles to promote the acceptance of contraception. Yet consider–you ask for scientific evidence for the Church teachings while you did not ask for any scientific evidence before accepting the idea contraception*.*

Consider this: could the notion that contraception is “harmless” or even “good” perhaps be merely propaganda? What scientific evidence is there that couples can use condoms or other forms of contraception without also interfering with the unitive nature of sex? What scientfic evidence is there that contracption *doesn’t *harm marriage and the family on a larger scale in society?

Here are some other quotes from Humanae Vitae that I invite you to seriously consider.

1. It can be foreseen that this teaching will perhaps not be easily received by all: Too numerous are those voices—amplified by the modern means of propaganda—which are contrary to the voice of the Church. To tell the truth, the Church is not surprised to be made, like her divine Founder, a “sign of contradiction”,[22] yet she does not because of this cease to proclaim with humble firmness the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical. Of such laws the Church was not the author, nor consequently can she be their arbiter; she is only their depositary and their interpreter, without ever being able to declare to be licit that which is not so by reason of its intimate and unchangeable opposition to the true good of man.
2. The teaching of the Church on the regulation of birth, which promulgates the divine law, will easily appear to many to be difficult or even impossible of actuation. And indeed, like all great beneficent realities, it demands serious engagement and much effort, individual, family and social effort. More than that, it would not be practicable without the help of God, who upholds and strengthens the good will of men…

My last point of things for you to consider as you ponder this subject: How do you view children and pregnancy? Do you see children as being “gifts’ from God” as the Bible describes them? Does the secular philosophy that promotes contraception view pregnancy and children in way the Bible tells us God views children?

1. The honest practice of regulation of birth demands first of all that husband and wife acquire and possess solid convictions concerning the true values of life and of the family, and that they tend towards securing perfect self-mastery.

 

[PeterMuz]

Paul says, quite specially, that the ONLY reason to abstain from sex is to devote yourself to prayer, which implies all other causes to be immoral. If a process NECESSITATES periods of abstinence for other reasons, that process can be said to be immoral as well. Oh, and I’m unmarried.

To be real honest, I’m not surprised you are unmarried. I gathered that after a while, but I would still like an answer to the question. Please assume for hypothetical sake, that you are married. What would your answer be?

 

[PeterMuz]

Having heard a great deal of information on the topic and remaining unconvinced I looked to others on the other side to see if anything logically sound was out there- and when arguments that I’ve seen before come up, the natural next step is rebuttal and voila! Now we’re debating. And you closing statements presume your side is the correct one- you shouldn’t do that.

You’ve done this from the very start, from the very first post you were not open.

 

[Good_Daughter]

If a couple uses a condom with the understanding that a child will be conceived if and only if God wills it, how is this couple denying God’s will?

God’s will is never for us to sin.

The problem with a couple using a condom is not so much that they deny God’s will for them to conceive (if that were the case, a similar argument might be made against a married couple who abstain). Instead, this couple is denying God’s will by sinning.

 

[tjm190]

Conception is a very serious thing to consider. And yes, a couple IS responsible for making that decision. It’s key to the marital process. Denial is a form a sacrafice. We are called to sacrafice ourselves for others. Especially our spouses.

Natural urges are just that. Something good that God has created but something that we must keep in check. Like anger. It’s good to get angry at unjust things. It’s not good to get angry at a child and smack it across the room. We have to be careful how we react to our urges.

Key issue is that our culture has reduced the value of sex. It’s seriousness. Almost reducing it to entertainment. I won’t deny that contraceptive sex MAY be, for a time, unitive, but eventually, in my experience, it looses that value. It becomes something to fight about rather than look forward to. Mutual use of one another works for a time. Some longer than others. Some would rather not worry about conception and while they may not end up in divorce or an affair, it does not mean that they didn’t miss out on something. Like I said, NFP is work. Many choose not to take that path. Many of those don’t have a clue why their marriages failed, either.

Today’s culture would claim that we have a basic right to have sex. Anytime, anywhere and with anyone. TOB explains “in the beginning, it was not so.” Why is this important? Because if we want a relationship like Adam had with Eve, we must understand how we are made for one another to love, not be used by the other.

And please don’t think that I don’t understand how an NFP couple might not still be using each other. It certainly can happen. That’s not the point. The bigger picture is still out there. ALL of TOB needs to be understood.

Again- it’s ridiculous to assert that contraception is responsible for the decline of our culture. And just because NFP is more work, doesn’t make an alternative with less work sinful or detrimental.

Well, you say. My experience is otherwise. But you don’t need to believe me or the millions of troubled couples the church has had to counsel on this subject.

If contraceptive sex is so good, why do couples still fight about it? I’ll tell you why. Eventually, one feels used by it. What seemed like a freeing mechanism becomes a trap. At that point, it’s no longer unitive. It becomes divisive.

I fail to see how, if neither partner desires pregnancy, sex with means to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy constitutes one partner using the other.

The quote was meant for married couples. Not singles. In fact Paul suggested that no one get married unless they couldn’t control themselves. Of course not being able to control oneself is no reason to marry another, either.

And there are many other reasons to abstain. Like being gone for long periods of time. Already having the size family you can manage. Illness. Many other reasons. Prayer helps one past the natural urge. Prayer is an exceptional substitute for focus on oneself. Be it for sexual urges or other reasons.

Again, Paul says quite specifically that there is one and only one reason to abstain. And as I recall Paul’s statement on getting married was related to his belief that the second coming was going to take place in the near future.

Many here feel the same way about church teaching as you did about your parents. It’s not all bad, you know. I, like many however, look for proof. So far, the church’s 2000 years of introspection and study has trumped all my arguments. It’s not that I don’t still have questions, I just now believe the answers are out there. I just need to go find the proper discussion.

I look for proof when the initial statement seems insufficient, which applies all to well to the case of contraception. If the answer that proves God’s will is contrary to contraception in every situation, then it’s got a very convincing disguise.

All aspects of faith requires study and proof to some people. While it’s easy for me to accept the existance of God, it was not so for many other aspects of the Catholic faith. Digging into them only makes my sense that the Catholic faith IS the Truth stronger. The same is true for many anti-Catholics out there. The more they dig, the more they search for the Truth, the more they come to the Church. Why? These are pretty scholarly people.

And it’s not just Catholics, BTW that are discovering contraception is unbiblical. Read about Kimberly Hahn.

OK, another author and book suggestion. As a single, you might get more out of Ms. Bonacci. She’s still single and works with single youth. It’s a long book in a Q&A format and some of the same messages are delivered multiple times. I wish it was more concise, but worth the read, anyway.
amazon.com/Real-Love-Answers-Questions-Marriage/dp/0898706130/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201202321&sr=8-3

Again, I made a statement that belief in God and scripture are things of faith, in the realm of logical discussion they are assumptions or axioms. I can honestly pray the Nicene Creed, so I think I have the axioms as the church. If contraception is truly contrary to the will of God, no more assumptions should be necessary- just good logic.
And I don’t feel inclined to buy a book for the sake of a belief I’m coming close to completely dismissing.

 

[tjm190]

To be real honest, I’m not surprised you are unmarried. I gathered that after a while, but I would still like an answer to the question. Please assume for hypothetical sake, that you are married. What would your answer be?

My answer would be no

 

[tjm190]

You’ve done this from the very start, from the very first post you were not open.

When have I made an argument that presumes my side to be the right one?

 

[tjm190]

God’s will is never for us to sin.

The problem with a couple using a condom is not so much that they deny God’s will for them to conceive (if that were the case, a similar argument might be made against a married couple who abstain). Instead, this couple is denying God’s will by sinning.

Since contraception’s status as a sin is what is being discussed, any statement that presumes contraception to be a sin is rather unhelpful.

 

[newbetx]

Since contraception’s status as a sin is what is being discussed, any statement that presumes contraception to be a sin is rather unhelpful.

Good point.

When have I made an argument that presumes my side to be the right one?

Problem is, you seem to imply that neither position can be proven to be the right one. So does that imply that “it depends” is the case?

Again- it’s ridiculous to assert that contraception is responsible for the decline of our culture. And just because NFP is more work, doesn’t make an alternative with less work sinful or detrimental.

Well, I think “rediculous” is not a proper term here. I would say that contraception has been a contributer. There are many. But they do revolve around the concept of “right to sex without possible consequence.”

I fail to see how, if neither partner desires pregnancy, sex with means to reduce the likelihood of pregnancy constitutes one partner using the other.

It’s a subtlety. Proper completion of the act allows God’s process to work without hinderance from us. We are granted the methods to naturally abstain when conception is less likely for unselfish reasons. But when one contracepts (purposely keeps the act from possibly being completed properly) one is only having sex for self pleasure. Even if it is mutual. That is what using someone is about. “I don’t want to be responsible for the outcome, I just want to have fun.”
That is the major difference.

Again, Paul says quite specifically that there is one and only one reason to abstain. And as I recall Paul’s statement on getting married was related to his belief that the second coming was going to take place in the near future.

I look for proof when the initial statement seems insufficient, which applies all to well to the case of contraception. If the answer that proves God’s will is contrary to contraception in every situation, then it’s got a very convincing disguise.

"5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. "
Doesn’t sound like the ONLY thing you can do. Just a good suggestion.

So why do you think contraception was “wrong” for thousands of years but now it’s OK? How were the early church and jewish leaders misled? Is there some biblical evidence that use of contraception IS God’s will?

Again, I made a statement that belief in God and scripture are things of faith, in the realm of logical discussion they are assumptions or axioms. I can honestly pray the Nicene Creed, so I think I have the axioms as the church. If contraception is truly contrary to the will of God, no more assumptions should be necessary- just good logic.
And I don’t feel inclined to buy a book for the sake of a belief I’m coming close to completely dismissing.

So unless we can convince you with a few sound bite like responses, you’ll blow off the teaching?

The reason I suggest a book or MP3 discourse is that there are basic principles you need to accept that TOB builds upon. I can’t type that much stuff. I’m not that good at recalling all the scriptual basis of TOB. And I can’t quote scripture like the back of my hand.

The MP3’s are free, so you don’t have to pay for them. Just spend your time listening.

 

[newbetx]

And finally, here is the info from the CCC

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.
The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.
* Conjugal fidelity
2364 The married couple forms "the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; it is rooted in the conjugal covenant, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent."147 Both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh. The covenant they freely contracted imposes on the spouses the obligation to preserve it as unique and indissoluble.148 "What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."149
2365 Fidelity expresses constancy in keeping one’s given word. God is faithful. The Sacrament of Matrimony enables man and woman to enter into Christ’s fidelity for his Church. Through conjugal chastity, they bear witness to this mystery before the world.
St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us. . . . I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.150
* The fecundity of marriage
2366 Fecundity is a gift, an end of marriage, for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is "on the side of life,"151 teaches that "it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life."152 "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."153
2367 Called to give life, spouses share in the creative power and fatherhood of God.154 "Married couples should regard it as their proper mission to transmit human life and to educate their children; they should realize that they are thereby cooperating with the love of God the Creator and are, in a certain sense, its interpreters. They will fulfill this duty with a sense of human and Christian responsibility."155
2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “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:159
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. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

 

[tjm190]

A thought occurs- does someone happen to have the data from a/the study that gives an NFP divorce rate? Not just a number, but an actual study (never trust a percentage.) I’m not disputing the claim itself just yet, but this sort of thing could prove useful for future discussion.

 

[tjm190]

I found one-
“http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/193/36”

This is the sort of study that is completely invalid. The sample size was too low, their is MASSIVE non response bias, voluntary response bias, and not even basic knowledge of statistical inference has been applied. Mail survey’s in general are not representative. Plus, the survey is taken from those who have taken a course on NFP- it’s not even based on the correct population!
When I asked my question I honestly did not intend to deny the statistic I found, although I did have other means in mind to use it for my case. However… that survey is a whole new level if unscientific. A student two weeks into an entry level statistics class could see how devoid of value this study is.

Unless there are other studies out there, then any claim related to the divorce rate of NFP users is completely lacking in statistical basis.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…When I asked my question I honestly did not intend to deny the statistic I found, although I did have other means in mind to use it for my case. …

And what exactly is your "case’?

I ask again, what scienfific evidence can you site that contraception does not interfere somehow with the unitive aspects of sex? *What scientific evidence can you offer that widespread use of contraception does not break down marriage and the family–in general–for society? *

If you do not want to accept what the Church teaches regarding contraception and marital relations on faith without “scientific evidence”,* why* accept what secular society teaches about contraception on faith, without scietific evidence?

 

[tjm190]

And what exactly is your "case’?

I ask again, what scienfific evidence can you site that contraception does not interfere somehow with the unitive aspects of sex? *What scientific evidence can you offer that widespread use of contraception does not break down marriage and the family–in general–for society? *

If you do not want to accept what the Church teaches regarding contraception and marital relations on faith without “scientific evidence”,* why* accept what secular society teaches about contraception on faith, without scietific evidence?

No proof is ever needed for a negative. For example, I just had a piece of toast- I had no evidence that that piece of toast would not cause me to grow a second head. However, there was no evidence in favor of toast having this effect on me so I felt safe in eating it.

Edit: I was going to go after the near certainty of lurking variables in their study, but at this point no information can be taken from said study