Contraception: Why Not?

[chain]

Most chemical contraceptives will often fail to prevent contraception but cause a abortion instead (by preventing implantation of the fertilized egg). This one will work with all the pro pill, pro-life crowd.

Personally, it makes sex better in every way - but hard to qualify that experiance (contraceptive hormones reduce female interest and arousal, contraceptives of any type subconsciously create a barrier between the couple (not to mention the barrier with God - but other Christian’s do not see that one). Plus there is a hormonal/chemical bonding that occurs when intercourse is completed naturally.

Simply put - God designed us, and he knew what he was doing. Contraceptives are our attempt to say God was wrong, are we arrogant.

 

[rpp]

I disagree with your opinion, interesting though it is. I think contraception if it’s truly a contraceptive and keeps egg and sperm apart can make sex unprocreative and therefore a bit like a French kiss. It’s just putting part of the man’s body inside part of the woman’s body but it doesn’t or can’t create life so it hasn’t any deeper meaning. However, if the contraceptive is abortifacient then it can kill.

What are you disagreeing with? Both masturbation and contraception are intrinsically evil and very grave sins. A French kiss is not intrinsically evil.

 

[Spiritoftruth]

A French kiss is not intrinsically evil.

…ok… you say potato and i’ll say potahto… or something like that… I would say that you could make the case that a french kiss (and some are nasty looking) could very well be intrinsically nasty… IMHO

 

[rpp]

…ok… you say potato and i’ll say potahto… or something like that… I would say that you could make the case that a french kiss (and some are nasty looking) could very well be intrinsically nasty… IMHO

So a husband and wife and engaging in French kissing as part of the marital embrace is evil? For a thing to be intrinsically evil, it must be evil under all circumstances. Barrier contraception is evil under all circumstances. French kissing is not. The Contraceptive pill has very limited medical application and thus is not intrinsically evil, but evil only when used for something other than the treatment of a serious medical condition.

 

[budgie2]

What are you disagreeing with? Both masturbation and contraception are intrinsically evil and very grave sins. A French kiss is not intrinsically evil.

Yes, but a French kiss has not been designed to be procreative. By making sex unprocreative then you have committed sin, but sometimes sterilisation and barrier methods can make sex harmless if a couple are using abortion as birth control or using an abortifacient drug. I disagree with the person above on the contraceptive pill and the contraceptive pill was designed as a contraceptive not to treat other illnesses. It was also designed as an abortifacient drug. Estrogen was added to the Progesterone only contraceptive pill to stop a woman bleeding a lot which had the secondary effect of stopping ovulation in most circumstances. It wasn’t modified for prolife reasons.

 

[BiologyBrain]

Wesley:

I think this doesn’t stand up when taking NFP into consideration. If hte marital embrace, like the Trinity, is a reflection of total and complete giving to one another, then practicing NFP would have to be sinful. I understand that at the time a couple practicing NFP to avoid pregnancy chooses to embrace, the act is unaltered, and each participant is sharing completely that which they have to offer at that particular time. However, is that marital embrace of a practicing NFP couple truly a comlete self giving when they are only engaging in the act when the wife is not fertile? It is a deliberate withholding of a particluar part of oneself when choosing to abstain only during fertile times.

To continue on your painting analogy…you say that abstinence is simply choosing to not paint a picture, so that the picture of the Trinity cannot be distorted. But practicing NFP is like intentionally choosing to paint a picture only when there is no red paint available.

–Rico

Your furthering of the analogy is intriguing. I think I requires further thought… Red is not always necessary in all paintings. W/ regards to NFP, what I mean is that God designed a woman’s body to be infertile at some times. God also did not design the marital embrace to produce children every time. In other words, God did not expect us to have to use red in every painting we make. He just requires us to paint without intentionally disrupting anything. The presumption w/ NFP is also that it is not only used to prevent conception. Instead quite frequently, it is used to acheive pregnancy and/or to identify & treat ob/gyn issues without invasive, uncomfortable, expensive, immoral examinations/treatments.

 

[Christopher68]

Your furthering of the analogy is intriguing. I think I requires further thought… Red is not always necessary in all paintings. W/ regards to NFP, what I mean is that God designed a woman’s body to be infertile at some times. God also did not design the marital embrace to produce children every time. In other words, God did not expect us to have to use red in every painting we make. He just requires us to paint without intentionally disrupting anything. The presumption w/ NFP is also that it is not only used to prevent conception. Instead quite frequently, it is used to acheive pregnancy and/or to identify & treat ob/gyn issues without invasive, uncomfortable, expensive, immoral examinations/treatments.

So God has given us the power to decide if/when we bring children into the world?

 

[BiologyBrain]

So God has given us the power to decide if/when we bring children into the world?

God has given us the means to prayerfully ask if we are called to bring more children into the world right now. Yes! He designed our bodies to not be fertile at all times for a reason. Breastfeeding is one method that apparently few (if any) have anything immoral to say about spacing children. Its completely within God’s plan. Just like God has given us the power to decide if/when we marry. The key is prayerful consideration of God’s will not selfishness.

 

[rpp]

Yes, but a French kiss has not been designed to be procreative.

Holding hands is also not procreative. Are you taking the position that any physical contact between a husband and a wife must be a sex act which is procreative? That is utterly ridiculous. It is also profoundly against Church teaching. You are promoting puritanism, which is a heresy.

By making sex unprocreative then you have committed sin, but sometimes sterilisation and barrier methods can make sex harmless if a couple are using abortion as birth control or using an abortifacient drug.

“Harmless sex”? What is that? You are claiming that killing a child reders sex “harmless”? Seems to me the baby has been seriously harmed… Barrier methods of contraception are intrisicaly (always) evil. Sterilization with the intent to avoid pregnancy is a grave evil. However, there are some medical procedures used to treat a serious medical condition that results in sterility, but that is not the intent.

I disagree with the person above on the contraceptive pill and the contraceptive pill was designed as a contraceptive not to treat other illnesses. It was also designed as an abortifacient drug. Estrogen was added to the Progesterone only contraceptive pill to stop a woman bleeding a lot which had the secondary effect of stopping ovulation in most circumstances. It wasn’t modified for prolife reasons.

You can disagree, but only because you lack medical knowledge. The birth control pill can be used to treat certain medical condition in women. The side effect is contraception but that is not the intent. The Church has spoken specifically on this issue and your position is in disagreement with the Church. I know single women who are chaste and opposed to contraception who have been prescribed the BCP to treat a medical condition. Have you ever heard of endometriosis? Ovarian cycsts? Your uninformed opinion regarding the BSP is not consistant with Church teaching.

 

[rpp]

Wesley:

I think this doesn’t stand up when taking NFP into consideration. If hte marital embrace, like the Trinity, is a reflection of total and complete giving to one another, then practicing NFP would have to be sinful. I understand that at the time a couple practicing NFP to avoid pregnancy chooses to embrace, the act is unaltered, and each participant is sharing completely that which they have to offer at that particular time. However, is that marital embrace of a practicing NFP couple truly a comlete self giving when they are only engaging in the act when the wife is not fertile? It is a deliberate withholding of a particluar part of oneself when choosing to abstain only during fertile times.

To continue on your painting analogy…you say that abstinence is simply choosing to not paint a picture, so that the picture of the Trinity cannot be distorted. But practicing NFP is like intentionally choosing to paint a picture only when there is no red paint available.

–Rico

Rico, when practicing NFP, the marital act is unaltered. The couple merely excecises self control and chooses not to engage in the marital embrace if they are using NFP to avoid pregnancy or choose to engage in it when trying to become pregnant. NFP is about self control, and self control is a virtue. The Church has spoken on this. Your position is not in agreement with Church teaching.

Remember, that the marital embrace has a two-fold purpose. Marital unity and procreation. Your analogy is incorrect because even with NFP, there is always a possibility that life may come, therefore, your position is without support.

 

[Rico_S]

The presumption w/ NFP is also that it is not only used to prevent conception. Instead quite frequently, it is used to acheive pregnancy and/or to identify & treat ob/gyn issues without invasive, uncomfortable, expensive, immoral examinations/treatments.

Of course, you are right, I just use the term NFP generically to refer to the practice of avoid pregnancy…which isn’t really accurate.

W/ regards to NFP, what I mean is that God designed a woman’s body to be infertile at some times. God also did not design the marital embrace to produce children every time. In other words, God did not expect us to have to use red in every painting we make.

I agree…no argument here.

He just requires us to paint without intentionally disrupting anything.

Is only painting when red is not available an intentional disruption? If no, then I can decide to do that from here on out?

 

[Spiritoftruth]

So a husband and wife and engaging in French kissing as part of the marital embrace is evil?

Never said “between a husband and wife”. My apologies if you understood that to be the case. My inference is what’s going on between the ears not the lips. I maintain that you can be involved in intrinsic evil activities with your pants on. I was also meaning between two unmarried people. Sorry for the confusion.

Peace

 

[BiologyBrain]

Is only painting when red is not available an intentional disruption? If no, then I can decide to do that from here on out?

No, b/c there is no disruption when using natural cycles. Not planting seeds in the field during the spring season is not a disruption - its allowing the field to recover. However, planting seeds while using a covered up planter or w/ chemicals to inhibit germination is a disruption. There’s nothing wrong with planting seeds in the dead of winter, except that germination is unlikely (although still within the realm of God’s possibility).

Being open to life is not only trying to conceive. Instead, it is using what God designed without changing anything God designed. Its allowing God’s design to help discern God’s will. Even when a couple does use God’s design to prevent conception w/o interference, they are open to God’s will. With prayerful consideration, a couple can use God’s design to help them avoid (or acheive) pregnancy as their situation requires. Again, the most important part of keeping NFP non-contraceptive is prayerful consideration of God’s will for and by the couple.

 

[budgie2]

(Edited)

The contraceptive pill should not be prescribed for medical reasons and this is a gross error on part of the Cardinals and Pope. The contraceptive pill is prescribed for illnesses such as Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome where a woman has cysts on her ovaries and does not ovulate, with higher levels of testosterone. However, the combined contraceptive pill prevents ovulation aswell as sometimes causing abortion. Why would a woman take a pill to stop her ovulating when she already cannot ovulate? To make her permanently infertile. This pill is being misprescribed and is a form of population control. The contraceptive pill is prescribed for infertility when it *induces *infertility.

 

[rpp]

The contraceptive pill should not be prescribed for medical reasons and this is a gross error on part of the Cardinals and Pope. The contraceptive pill is prescribed for illnesses such as Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome where a woman has cysts on her ovaries and does not ovulate, with higher levels of testosterone. However, the combined contraceptive pill prevents ovulation aswell as sometimes causing abortion. Why would a woman take a pill to stop her ovulating when she already cannot ovulate? To make her permanently infertile. This pill is being misprescribed and is a form of population control. The contraceptive pill is prescribed for infertility when it *induces *infertility.

First, your medical knowledge is incomplete.

Second, are you reading what you are writing? The Pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals. Thus is the Holy Father says something is morally permisslbe, then it is morally permissible. If you do not want to engage in that, then don’t, that is what prudential judgment if for, However, you are gravely mistaken when you try to apply your very narrow and uninformed opinion on the Pope.

One cannot be authentically Catholic and say what you said which I have put in bold above. You need to make a choice to avoid confusing of other on this site. Either remove “Catholic” from your religion on your profile here or, better yet, conform you conscience to the unchanging teachings of the Church.

 

[ryanmac]

Hi rpp, I realize you’re passionate about this issue, but perhaps you can quote the official teaching that is so controversial to budgie so that you can look at the documents together to make sure your concerns (on both sides) are valid.

Plus, I’d certainly enjoy learning about the official teaching on this issue as well.

 

[Karoline]

The contraceptive pill should not be prescribed for medical reasons and this is a gross error on part of the Cardinals and Pope. The contraceptive pill is prescribed for illnesses such as Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome where a woman has cysts on her ovaries and does not ovulate, with higher levels of testosterone. However, the combined contraceptive pill prevents ovulation aswell as sometimes causing abortion. Why would a woman take a pill to stop her ovulating when she already cannot ovulate? To make her permanently infertile. This pill is being misprescribed and is a form of population control. The contraceptive pill is prescribed for infertility when it *induces *infertility.

The birth control pill works by:

Correcting the hormone imbalance
Lowering the level of testosterone, which will improve acne and lessen hair growth
Regulating her menstrual periods
Lowering the risk of endometrial cancer (which is higher in young women who don’t ovulate regularly)

I have PCOS, it is not nice. I take the birth control pill for these reasons. Me taking it has nothing to do with fertility or actual ‘birth control’ as I am single, and chaste.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Here is why not:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

 

[ryanmac]

RPP, can you clarify the following quote? I know this isn’t on topic of the original post, but since I’m the original poster I will take the liberty.

The Pope is infallible on matters of faith and morals. Thus is the Holy Father says something is morally permisslbe, then it is morally permissible.

My understanding is that Papal Infallibility has only been exercised twice. Are you saying “the Pope is infallible” but really meaning “we should be obedient to the Pope”? That seems more inline with my understanding of Church teaching. I’m still green on Papal Infallibility so if I’m gravely misunderstanding this, please be gracious.

 

[Florida_mom]

Yes, it’s true but abstinence is also withholding oneself from one’s spouse. I don’t abstain. I’m not a fan of Humanae Vitae which I’ve been checking out. I think it’s too liberal.

Condoms aren’t too liberal per your recommendation last week?