Contraception vs. Natural Family Planning

  • Thread starter Thread starter annajdonaldson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Xantippe said:
My question was about a case where BOTH spouses don’t feel like having sex on a particular fertile day, because they don’t want another child. Are they obligated to have sex on that particular fertile day, even though neither actually wants to have sex?
Click to expand...
I did answer. I don’t see where the Church teaches that.

Contraception is wrong not just because one uses it to avoid children. It is wrong because it corrupts the marital act.

NFP does not corrupt the marital act, each and every act is ordered towards procreation.

With NFP the couple avoids sex when fertile.

The Church does teach that “marital debt” is an important part of marriage. Selfishness occurs when the “marital debt” is avoided for unjust reasons.

So the “not tonight dear”, shouldn’t be for unjust reasons.
Lucy declining Ricky because she doesn’t want a child who makes too much noise is unjust (I tried to make the example obviously unjust)
 
Xantippe said:
Let’s assume that it’s a fertile day. Neither spouse is feeling inclined, because they do not wish to achieve a pregnancy. Are they obligated to have marital relations on that day even though they don’t actually wish to, just because the wife is fertile?
Click to expand...
You posted “they do not wish to achieve a pregnancy”. Is it justified in you example to use natural family planning?

The* intention* is important. For those that believe there is fertility between them, the use when it occurs in a fertile cycle, should be random while there is no justification for natural family planning. By random I mean no thought given to avoiding pregnancy.
 
Vico said:
You posted “they do not wish to achieve a pregnancy”. Is it justified in you example to use natural family planning?

The* intention* is important. For those that believe there is fertility between them, the use when it occurs in a fertile cycle, should be random while there is no justification for natural family planning.
Click to expand...
Why random? Why does marital lovemaking need to be assigned to random days?

Why not actually make love when one is actually interested?
 
Vico said:
You posted “they do not wish to achieve a pregnancy”. Is it justified in you example to use natural family planning?

The* intention* is important. For those that believe there is fertility between them, the use when it occurs in a fertile cycle, should be random while there is no justification for natural family planning. By random I mean no thought given to avoiding pregnancy.
Click to expand...
That seems like an unrealistic approach in the context of a real life marriage. Perhaps in a young newly married couple without too many considerations they could take such an attitude, but in normal marriages of approximately 30 years of fertility, already juggling life with children and other commitments… it’s not particularly responsible to not be planning to either avoid pregnancy or conceive. I mean once you have learned the nature of the fertility cycle, you pretty much know when you are likely to get pregnant and when its extremely unlikely. You can’t just unknow that sort of thing to the point that it doesn’t factor into any choice to have sex.
 
LongingSoul said:
That seems like an unrealistic approach in the context of a real life marriage. Perhaps in a young newly married couple without too many considerations they could take such an attitude, but in normal marriages of approximately 30 years of fertility, already juggling life with children and other commitments… it’s not particularly responsible to not be planning to either avoid pregnancy or conceive. I mean once you have learned the nature of the fertility cycle, you pretty much know when you are likely to get pregnant and when its extremely unlikely. You can’t just unknow that sort of thing to the point that it doesn’t factor into any choice to have sex.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s a different matter for real life married folks, and those who are unmarried, living in a perfect world of rubrics and regulations. Real life happens. Every confessor knows this, and people who are Catholics in good standing do as well.

Peace everyone.
 
LongingSoul said:
That seems like an unrealistic approach in the context of a real life marriage. Perhaps in a young newly married couple without too many considerations they could take such an attitude, but in normal marriages of approximately 30 years of fertility, already juggling life with children and other commitments… it’s not particularly responsible to not be planning to either avoid pregnancy or conceive. I mean once you have learned the nature of the fertility cycle, you pretty much know when you are likely to get pregnant and when its extremely unlikely. You can’t just unknow that sort of thing to the point that it doesn’t factor into any choice to have sex.
Click to expand...
Right.

And that can be true without any charting–once you know, you do register such things as fertile mucus or feeling especially hot.

Granted there are marginal times, but even without charting, there are large portions of the cycle when one knows that conception is either likely or unlikely. And that does factor into whether or not one is interested.
 
LongingSoul said:
That seems like an unrealistic approach in the context of a real life marriage. Perhaps in a young newly married couple without too many considerations they could take such an attitude, but in normal marriages of approximately 30 years of fertility, already juggling life with children and other commitments… it’s not particularly responsible to not be planning to either avoid pregnancy or conceive. I mean once you have learned the nature of the fertility cycle, you pretty much know when you are likely to get pregnant and when its extremely unlikely. You can’t just unknow that sort of thing to the point that it doesn’t factor into any choice to have sex.
Click to expand...
So really in your comments, you are saying that there is justification for natural family planning after 30 years?
 
Xantippe said:
Right.

And that can be true without any charting–once you know, you do register such things as fertile mucus or feeling especially hot.

Granted there are marginal times, but even without charting, there are large portions of the cycle when one knows that conception is either likely or unlikely. And that does factor into whether or not one is interested.
Click to expand...
No doubt natural desire favors fertility.
 
Vico said:
So really in your comments, you are saying that there is justification for natural family planning after 30 years?
Click to expand...
Well justification for avoiding pregnancy, of course. Advanced maternal age comes with a natural lessening of desire and ability to take on the responsibility of child raising. Trust me. I know.
 
Vico said:
After thinking this over more I have to revise my comment on your Premise 2 that: “There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.”

Since the intention, say in a month, must not be to unjustly avoid pregnancy (this would only occur where pregnancy is *thought *to be possible) it can be said that when choosing, those times thought to be more fertile must not be intentionally avoided without just reason, so there is an obligation. Premise 2 therefore incorrect in some situations.
Click to expand...
No, the logic does not follow. “Not avoiding” is not the same as “choosing fertile times.” Premise 2 is always correct.

Avoiding requires:
  • wanting sex; and
  • knowing fertility status; and
  • avoiding fertile times
Not avoiding is true if:
  • don’t want sex; or
  • don’t know fertility status; or
  • choose fertile times
I can “not avoid” by means other than choosing fertile times. I am never required to choose a fertile time. “Choose” is a knowing choice, not happenstance.)
 
Rau said:
No, the logic does not follow. “Not avoiding” is not the same as “choosing fertile times.” Premise 2 is always correct.

Avoiding requires:
  • wanting sex; and
  • knowing fertility status; and
  • avoiding fertile times
Not avoiding is true if:
  • don’t want sex; or
  • don’t know fertility status; or
  • choose fertile times
I can “not avoid” by means other than choosing fertile times. I am never required to choose a fertile time. “Choose” is a knowing choice, not happenstance.)
Click to expand...
Premise 2 that: “There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.”

The fertility status does not need to be known certainly. Choosing exclusively only times in a month that are thought to be infertile is NFP. To not have that intention means that ***when ***choosing times some must be thought to be more fertile.
 
Vico said:
Premise 2 that: “There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.”

The fertility status does not need to be known certainly. Choosing exclusively only times in a month that are thought to be infertile is NFP. To not have that intention means that ***when ***choosing times some must be thought to be more fertile.
Click to expand...
No, that is simply wrong logic. Plse reread my post.
  • Happenstance is not a deliberate choice.
  • One need not choose sex if one does not desire it.
There cannot be a compulsion to choose sex at a fertile time.
 
Rau said:
No, that is simply wrong logic. Plse reread my post.
  • Happenstance is not a deliberate choice.
  • One need not choose sex if one does not desire it.
There cannot be a compulsion to choose sex at a fertile time.
Click to expand...
No, that is simply wrong logic. Plse reread my post.

There is a choice specifically made in what I posted, it is not happenstance.
Also, some instances of refusing the request of conjugal relations would be unjustified.
 
Vico said:
No, that is simply wrong logic. Plse reread my post.

There is a choice specifically made in what I posted, it is not happenstance.
Also, some instances of refusing the request of conjugal relations would be unjustified.
Click to expand...
I’ve presented the Boolean logic in my 2nd to last post. If you wish to point out the error logically, we can converse further. If not, 🤷

No choice can be compelled. A couple may simply not feel like sex. Or one may have sex while fertile, by happenstance. But premise 2 holds.

It never happens that a couple is compelled to have sex at a given time. They do so because they want to and choose not to refrain. That is entirely different to responding to a compulsion. Would anyone say: “hey, we better have sex because I’m fertile and don’t have a reason to refrain”!
 
Rau said:
It never happens that a couple is compelled to have sex at a given time. They do so because they want to and choose not to refrain. That is entirely different to responding to a compulsion. Would anyone say: “hey, we better have sex because I’m fertile and don’t have a reason to refrain”!
Click to expand...
Actually, yeah. When the couple is actively trying for a baby. I think I used close to those exact words when hubby and I decided to try for baby number two.

That being said…it isn’t wrong for a couple to say "hey, I’d rather not have sex right now because I’m fertile and it wouldn’t be a good idea for us to get pregnant right now (insert valid reason to avoid getting pregnant).

Once again…I think I used that exact wording a few months ago when we were trying to avoid.

Funnily enough…I still got pregnant…go figure. :roll eyes:

I think it’s bizarre that tracking my cycle to avoid getting pregnant could be…in anyway…immoral and against Church teaching.

My husband loves and cares about me deeply and wants me to stay healthy and happy. That isn’t the case when I’m pregnant. When I’m pregnant I’m unhappy, unhealthy (regardless of how hard I try to be otherwise…something always pops up) and completely overwhelmed and stressed.
He knows I need a break from having babies…and lord knows nursing doesn’t do anything to get rid of my cycle.
He has no problem abstaining for an extended period of time if we need to. If I say no…there is a VERY good reason why I’m saying no.

Husbands should be able to respect that and not press for the so-called “marital debt” when their wives are exhausted, stressed and overwhelmed with taking care of babies. Regardless of fertility or not.
 
Kelfa28 said:
Actually, yeah. When the couple is actively trying for a baby. I think I used close to those exact words when hubby and I decided to try for baby number two.

That being said…it isn’t wrong for a couple to say "hey, I’d rather not have sex right now because I’m fertile and it wouldn’t be a good idea for us to get pregnant right now (insert valid reason to avoid getting pregnant).

Once again…I think I used that exact wording a few months ago when we were trying to avoid.

Funnily enough…I still got pregnant…go figure. :roll eyes:

I think it’s bizarre that tracking my cycle to avoid getting pregnant could be…in anyway…immoral and against Church teaching.

My husband loves and cares about me deeply and wants me to stay healthy and happy. That isn’t the case when I’m pregnant. When I’m pregnant I’m unhappy, unhealthy (regardless of how hard I try to be otherwise…something always pops up) and completely overwhelmed and stressed.
He knows I need a break from having babies…and lord knows nursing doesn’t do anything to get rid of my cycle.
He has no problem abstaining for an extended period of time if we need to. If I say no…there is a VERY good reason why I’m saying no.

Husbands should be able to respect that and not press for the so-called “marital debt” when their wives are exhausted, stressed and overwhelmed with taking care of babies. Regardless of fertility or not.
Click to expand...
I’ve no disagreement with anything you’ve said, though it’s a bit tangential to the matter in debate between Vico and me. 🙂
 
Rau said:
I’ve presented the Boolean logic in my 2nd to last post. If you wish to point out the error logically, we can converse further. If not, 🤷

No choice can be compelled. A couple may simply not feel like sex. Or one may have sex while fertile, by happenstance. But premise 2 holds.

It never happens that a couple is compelled to have sex at a given time. They do so because they want to and choose not to refrain. That is entirely different to responding to a compulsion. Would anyone say: “hey, we better have sex because I’m fertile and don’t have a reason to refrain”!
Click to expand...
Premise 2 that: “There is no obligation to choose times when pregnancy is more likely.”

There can be an obligation that is willingly accepted and I do not call that compulsion. However you may be using compulsion as a synonym for obligation as in something forced against the will. The words have different connotations. My additional comment in that post was without regard to fertility: “Also, some instances of refusing the request of conjugal relations would be unjustified.”

For the issue “I’m fertile and don’t have a reason to refrain” is not the point I made. So this is a not-starter. What I wrote was; “To not have that intention [of NFP] means that ***when ***choosing times some must be thought to be more fertile.”

The logic that defines avoidance for a month is if there are any conjugal acts in a month, and it is the intent is to avoid pregnancy for that month, and no acts in that month are in times thought to be fertile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top