Contraception question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anne_G
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anne_G

Guest
Hi, I’m single so I ask this not for me, but just out of interest.

I can’t see what the difference is between contraception and NFP. Isn’t the intent the same, not to have children? I understand NFP there is still a chance of pregnancy, and with contraception there supposedly is not.

I just don’t understand what the difference is, can someone explain it to me please?
 
NFP is simply periodic abstinance–something praised in the Scriptures (1 Cor. 7:4-5).

The difference between NFP and contraception can be shown in analogy to eating. Eating is a good thing, something given by God, and food is a gift. Now, if someone wants to lose weight–which is fine for a good reason–it is just fine to go on a diet, abstaining from excess food. It is not ok to splurge and purge (like bulemia.). The intent is the same–to lose weight–but the means are different, one evil, and one permissable.

On the same token, if there is no good reason to lose weight, losing too much wieght by abstaining from food would be sinful (like anorexia) because it is harming the body–just as practicing NFP with no grave reason is also a sin.

(just so no one gets the wrong idea, most bulemics and anorexics have legitimate illnesses that make their condition out of their own control and therefore not a sin, but the actions are still objectively wrong).
 
Contraception is in essence saying to your lover, “I love everything about you except your fertility.”

NFP says to your lover, “I love everything about you including your fertility and I’m willing to accept the potential gift of our union should God will it.”
 
NFP is the observation of naturally occuring fertility/infertility. Contraception is intentionally removing the element of fertility.

NFP couples don’t participate in the act if fertility is unwanted. Contracepting couples participate in the act and reject that very important aspect of themselves or their spouse.
 
**Articificial **contraception, be it a condom, the pill, voluntary surgical procedure, or any other method, is intrinsicly evil. While there are many reasons, here a couple that occur to me.

It interferes with the creative act of God. Periodic abstenance, on the other hand, can be a form self-mortification that can help to contribute to personal holiness.

It is a holding back of the self-donation, the gift, of the person to their spouse while simultaneously using them for personal sexual gratification. Periodic continence does not have this effect.

It degrades the other person by making them into an object of sexual gratification.

It degrades the sacred marital act to just “scratching and itch”, an entertaining past-time.

It promotes promiscuity.

NFP and periodic continence does none of these things.
 
A sufficiently grave reason is necessary to make use of Natural Family Planning. Using NFP to limit the size of a family when there is no good reason is not permissible.

The Church teaches that periodic abstinence can be morally acceptable only when certain conditions are met. These conditions include:
  • Mutual consent on the part of both spouses.
  • Mutual consent on the part of both spouses.
  • The ability to engage in the practice without risking sins against chastity.
  • A grave, serious reason for doing so.
 
Anne G:
Isn’t the intent the same, not to have children?
The intent of not having children is morally neutral. The question is the means by which this intent is accomplished.

One way of not having children is to not have sex. There is nothing wrong, in and of itself, with not having sex.

That’s the essence of NFP: abstaining from the conjugal act during the time of the wife’s cycle when she is fertile and thus most likely to conceive.

Contraception, on the other hand, is not about *not *having sex. It’s about engaging in the conjugal act, and doing something before, during, or after that frustrates the procreative dimension of the act.
I understand NFP there is still a chance of pregnancy, and with contraception there supposedly is not.?
Actually, there is still a chance of pregnancy with contraception.

Click here for a discussion on the effectiveness rate for NFP.
 
Hi, I’m single so I ask this not for me, but just out of interest.

I can’t see what the difference is between contraception and NFP. Isn’t the intent the same, not to have children? I understand NFP there is still a chance of pregnancy, and with contraception there supposedly is not.

I just don’t understand what the difference is, can someone explain it to me please?
All artificial contraception is like saying “My body works fine and I need it to malfunction”. So you take drugs, or use physical barriers to make your body do something which is not natural.

NFP says “My body works fine, and at such and such a time I am far less likely to get pregnant than otherwise”. It is using the natural rythm of your body to avoid pregnancy (or become pregnant).
 
Another way to look at it:

“Honey, I need you to pump yourself full of hormones so I can have sex with you.”

Contraception wasn’t invented to prevent pregnancy. A 100% method for that has existed since the dawn of man. It’s called abstinence. Contraception was invented so we could have sex anytime we wanted, supposedly without consequences. We turned fertility into a health risk instead of the blessing from God that it really is.
 
Avoiding pregnancy is only half of what NFP does!

NFP also lets couple know when they are fertile and will most likely will be able to conceive.

Couples that use NFP use it not only to use it to HELP AVOID pregnancy but they use it HELP ACHIEVE Pregnancy. ABC, be it the pill, condoms, other barriers, shots, etc cannot help a couple Achieve Pregnancy.

I have heard that for couples that have a hard time conceiving the Dr’s will tell them: to abstain from sex during the two weeks around a woman’s period (to increase the man’s sperm count at a time when conception is not possible), and to have sex on alternate nights during the remaining two weeks.

NFP is about it about abstaining! It can be used to either abstain to HELP avoid pregnancy or it can be used to HELP aid in achieving pregnancy. Are condoms used to help achieve pregnancy? Are pills used to help achieve pregnancy?

NFP ONLY works when both husband and wife are working TOGETHER. They together with God have to decide what is best for their family. Both Husband and Wife know that each act has the most likely hood to achieve pregnancy or avoid pregnancy.

Lets say a couple has a baby that is 2 months old. Most couples I know, especially the women, is not going to want a NEW baby in the near future. So the options are
  1. For the last 2 months or more they have been abstain from sex, because of the women’s health. So they can continue to abstain until they are ready to have another child, which could be another year, 2 years or more or
  2. they can have relations when they are most likely they will not achieve pregnancy.
Seeing couple married each other to be with each other, they are most likely going to choose option 2 over option 1.

Or lets say the husband just lost his job and the family may be loosing their home. Therefore they would not want a child right now. So the best thing would be either to TOTALLY abstain or have relations when they are most likely not going to achieve pregnancy.

When a couple looses their job and have NO income how are they going to pay for ABC? Those couples are going to be left with just the option of TOTAL abstinence: this is because they wouldn’t have a clue if they were fertile or infertile.

In order for NFP to work at achieving pregnancy or avoiding pregnancy it need both husband and wife to work together. They together know if they are fertile or infertile and they together decide to have relations based on that information. Where if the wife is taking an oral ABC she is doing it on her own, there is nothing for the husband to do. Also if the oral ABC fails and she does get pregnant, who gets the blame? She does! The husband right away will say “Didn’t you take your pill?”

Where with NFP if they do end up getting pregnant, no one get’s blamed! Both husband and wife know that there is always the chance that they will end up pregnant and they together decided to have sex. The NFP couple that ends up with a “surprise pregnancy” will turn to God and either ask Him for help or thank Him for this gift.

Couples that use NFP DO NOT start turning on each other and putting blame on each other they do not say things like you didn’t take your pill or you purposely have not been taking it? Or you poked hole in the condom, you didn’t use it right…. etc, etc, etc. They know that they are equally responsible and that they both did this…. There was nothing “extra” added to the sex. The wife was NOT doing something extra like taking an Oral ABC. The husband was NOT doing something extra like using a condom. There was nothing added to the relation, so there was nothing that could “fail”.

When ABC “fails” ONE of the partners gets blamed for the “surprise pregnancy”. The partner that used the extra (the ABC) is the one that gets blamed. I think that it reason enough for couples NOT to use ABC!
 
The burden of ABC falls on one person, and if it fails it places fault on that person. NFP as the other poster said requires both spouses to take responsibility.

I was raised with a pre-marital/contraceptive mentality. Sex was recreational, sure ABC postponed pregnancy but by the time you are in your 20’s an “oops” is bound to happen usually with an uncommited sexual partner who either encourages you to have an abortion or emotionally/financially abandons you. Natural Family Planning there are no “oops”. The couple just decides to make love in their fertile phase. The only ‘failure’ rate in Natural Family Planning is really two people opening themselves to life.

This is also why marriage is important for heterosexuals and not homosexuals, since marriage creates a husband who is ready and willing to father any children from the relationship. Two people of the same sex can not open themselves to life from a sexual act and do not have this concern. Women, no matter if they are 17, 27 , or 37 always do have this concern. Women suffer a much greater chance of poverty and social risk if there is no commited sexual partner, so it is absolutely necessary to have a husband before engaging in sex.

Contraception allows men to not commit. Natural Family Planning makes them a sexual partner that honors and respects their wives and the creation of their children.
 
Hi, I’m single so I ask this not for me, but just out of interest.

I can’t see what the difference is between contraception and NFP. Isn’t the intent the same, not to have children? I understand NFP there is still a chance of pregnancy, and with contraception there supposedly is not.

I just don’t understand what the difference is, can someone explain it to me please?
NFP is a method of abstinence during times where the woman is likely fertile. Artificial birth control is the alteration of those fertile times.

Both are morally neutral. One (artificial birth control) is against the disciplinary teaching of the Church.

I hope this helps.
 
NFP is a method of abstinence during times where the woman is likely fertile. Artificial birth control is the alteration of those fertile times.

Both are morally neutral. One (artificial birth control) is against the disciplinary teaching of the Church.
Contraception is intrinsically wrong. It is a matter of the natural moral law and the universal and ordinary magisterium has always taught it is evil.

It is not a matter of Church discipline.
 
Contraception is intrinsically wrong. It is a matter of the natural moral law and the universal and ordinary magisterium has always taught it is evil.

It is not a matter of Church discipline.
How do we know this to be true?
 
NFP is a method of abstinence during times where the woman is likely fertile. Artificial birth control is the alteration of those fertile times.

Both are morally neutral. One (artificial birth control) is against the disciplinary teaching of the Church.

I hope this helps.
:eek:

Incorrect! Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae states it expressly that artificial contraception is not morally neutral!

The Catechism states: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
And just a little bit later this admonition is repeated. A rarity in the Catechism.2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
There is nothing morally neutral about artificial contraception (ABC)! To even imply this is incorrect.
 
How do we know this to be true?
Because ABC attacks an intrinsic good, one’s fertility, i.e., the procreative potential of the conjugal act, and changes the language and meaning of the conjugal act (see above quoted CCC paragraphs).
 
:eek:

Incorrect! Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae states it expressly that artificial contraception is not morally neutral!
Why should I accept that Pope Paul VI’s statement has the authority to declare this a moral ill, with the force that I can no longer reasonably deny it?
 
Because ABC attacks an intrinsic good, one’s fertility, i.e., the procreative potential of the conjugal act, and changes the language and meaning of the conjugal act (see above quoted CCC paragraphs).
I believe that ABC can be used to assist in the intrinsic good of fertility, for I would argue that reducing fertility for some acts, to increase fruitfulness overall (having a good number of healthy children, a number that one can support reasonably), is assisting in the purpose of fertility (bearing healthy Christian children), and so assisting in fertility.

I also hold that ABC used to undermine fertility (to limit the number of children for the sake of selfishness of the couple, or to try to ensure that no children will result from a relationship) is always wrong. And I would also add that this would be the case for 99% of contracepting couples.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top