Contraception...Your beliefs?

[SteveVH]

You also forget in the OT you are only allowed to have relations with your wife while she is the most fertile and likely to become pregnent. It was forbidden to do otherwise. NFP seeks to undermine Gods’s sovereign will by having relations when there will be the least likely hood of conception. In reality it is doing the same as contraception.

NFP is also used to enhance the chances of conception through a more accurate knowledge of when, exactly, the woman is most likely to conceive.

As far as comparing it to contraception, all other methods of family planning change a person’s fertility as designed by God by stopping the natural process of ovulation, or preventing the natural meeting of sperm and egg, or permanently stopping a natural function. A couple using NFP works within God’s design of their bodies instead of trying to change that design.

And as far as I know, the Old Testament practice was to not have relations during menstruation. That was when the woman was considered “unclean”. Maybe you can enlighten me; not that the Mosaic laws matter to us any longer anyway. Procreation is not the only reason to have relations. There is also the matter of bonding between husband and wife. Its just that procreation can never be removed from the equation.

What I don’t get is this: Why in the world is not every granola cruncher in the country jumping aboard the NFP ship? Forget the moral issues for the moment. It is more effective than contraception and completley natural while protecting our water sytems from being polluted with female hormones which are actually changing the sex ratio of fish and damaging their populations.

 

[Monergistic]

It’s healthy for a husband and wife to have sex between 150 and 200 times a year. Also, the way the world is now, it’s a rare family that’s realistically able to have a whole lot of babies, and smart women who know about high risk pregnancy will do what they can to prevent one starting at a particular age (which can depend on family history). So in order to try and have a healthy amount of sex while keeping the family size manageable, what do you do? Most Christians (including nearly all Catholics at this point) will consult a medical professional and carefully select some form of contraception. The effects are generally thus: there’s some manageable risks and side effects, couples can have more sex which is good for the marriage, families are better cared for, and I guess the unitive and procreative ends of sex are selectively decoupled. Which ultimately means- nothing really bad happens. At least not as a direct result of using contraception.

Nearly all Protestant pastors are married. Nearly all of them use or have used contraception. Virtually none of them have discovered that something unexpectedly heinous pops up on them. Objectively speaking, who has a better view of what’s happening? Celibate priests who want you to be scared of what might happen, or Protestant pastors who are right in it and have nothing special to report?

Do you really think the average Protestant pastor/priest is so jaded and blind to God’s will that they can be simultaneously steeped in the Christian religion and steeped in grave, mortal sin without beginning to show a glimmer of realization? Honestly, what seems more likely- that, or the hypothesis that celibate clergy are by definition a little out of touch with this thing?

 

[jericho777]

I am not saying if I am for or against contraception, but NFP is doing exact what contraception does just in a different way, no matter how you look at it; however, the church says it is an acceptable manner. ???

For those who want to speak about the bad medical effects of contraception, are you concerned about the garbage people are eating or the amount of alcohol that is consumed in the world. There are plenty of people that want to talk about the medical side affects of contraception that don’t want to stop drinking or loose the 40 pounds that is slowly killing there heart. People are funny that way?

NFP is also used to enhance the chances of conception through a more accurate knowledge of when, exactly, the woman is most likely to conceive.

As far as comparing it to contraception, all other methods of family planning change a person’s fertility as designed by God by stopping the natural process of ovulation, or preventing the natural meeting of sperm and egg, or permanently stopping a natural function. A couple using NFP works within God’s design of their bodies instead of trying to change that design.

And as far as I know, the Old Testament practice was to not have relations during menstruation. That was when the woman was considered “unclean”. Maybe you can enlighten me; not that the Mosaic laws matter to us any longer anyway. Procreation is not the only reason to have relations. There is also the matter of bonding between husband and wife. Its just that procreation can never be removed from the equation.

What I don’t get is this: Why in the world is not every granola cruncher in the country jumping aboard the NFP ship? Forget the moral issues for the moment. It is more effective than contraception and completley natural while protecting our water sytems from being polluted with female hormones which are actually changing the sex ratio of fish and damaging their populations.

einna I totally agree with you. It is mimicking the effects of contraception without the drug or other aspects. Which is a plus if you don’t want those risks. When I was in pre Cana we were taught NFP if done correctly was just as effective as contraception.

Steve I would agree there is more than one reason for sex as you indicated. The CC will use the story of Gen. 38:6-10 to talk against contraception but devise a plan that is just as effective as contraception in preventing pregnancy. If I remember correctly in the OT there was only a two week window when relations with your wife was allowed. It was a time when fertility was at its highest. NFP seem to go against this. In reality if NFP is just as effective as contraception (as I was taught in pre Cana) and seeks to do the same I have a hard time to see the difference.

As far as the crunchy granola crowd goes I don’t even try to figure them out. But I think they are probably more left of center.

 

[SteveVH]

It’s healthy for a husband and wife to have sex between 150 and 200 times a year. Also, the way the world is now, it’s a rare family that’s realistically able to have a whole lot of babies, and smart women who know about high risk pregnancy will do what they can to prevent one starting at a particular age (which can depend on family history). So in order to try and have a healthy amount of sex while keeping the family size manageable, what do you do? Most Christians (including nearly all Catholics at this point) will consult a medical professional and carefully select some form of contraception. The effects are generally thus: there’s some manageable risks and side effects, couples can have more sex which is good for the marriage, families are better cared for, and I guess the unitive and procreative ends of sex are selectively decoupled. Which ultimately means- nothing really bad happens. At least not as a direct result of using contraception.

Except that they never fully given themselves to one another.

Nearly all Protestant pastors are married. Nearly all of them use or have used contraception. Virtually none of them have discovered that something unexpectedly heinous pops up on them.

Like what? A bolt of lightning?

Objectively speaking, who has a better view of what’s happening? Celibate priests who want you to be scared of what might happen, or Protestant pastors who are right in it and have nothing special to report?

The celibate priest who has had hundreds of conversations and confessions with married couples and can actually have an objective viewpoint, not to mention his training in the moral aspects of sexuality.

And where you ever got the idea that priests want us to be scared of what might happen I have no idea. What are you taliking about?

Do you really think the average Protestant pastor/priest is so jaded and blind to God’s will that they can be simultaneously steeped in the Christian religion and steeped in grave, mortal sin without beginning to show a glimmer of realization? Honestly, what seems more likely- that, or the hypothesis that celibate clergy are by definition a little out of touch with this thing?

This is one of the greatest myths out there. It is based upon the assumption that because a priest is celibate then he has no business in speaking on the morality of the sacrament of Matrimony and the relationship between a man and a woman as intended by God.

I would say that there is no institution on earth that is in touch with human sexuality to the degree of the Catholic Church. A priest is not there to give his own advice. He is there to pass on what we have received, so his personal expeirence in engaging in sex has nothing whatsoever to do with sound moral teaching on the issue of human sexuality.

What do you do with the married Protestant pastor who is a complete failure in his relations with his wife? Do you want his advice, with all his great experience?

 

[KathleenGee]

I am back.

Couples who practice natural family planning have less risk for divorce than those who use artificial contraception.

The success rate for avoiding pregnancies using natural family planning has a higher rate than artificial. But according to Humanae Vitae, avoiding pregnancy is only permissible due to serious problems be they health of mother or unemployment.

Every married couple needs to spend time with the Lord to discern His will for their marriage and number of offspring.

I was down to $200 a month every month raising my children, but we prayed together and they seldom got sick.

 

[PJM]

=gnosisofthomas;10574150]I’d say God is every bit as in charge when a condom breaks as He is when you’ve miscalculated a woman’s cycle and she gets pregnant.

Also, I’m sorry, but I don’t think the god in that last quote about Onan is a god worth worshipping. Sleeping with your dead brother’s wife to give her a child that won’t be considered yours, and then getting killed when you can’t do it? Not the best argument for the sanctity of sex.

GOSH Id like to meet you. I’ve never met someone who actually knwe better and more than God:blush:

That’s was about 4,000 years ago. tnink that may have had someting to do with this teaching?

God Bless you,

Pat

 

[jericho777]

But according to Humanae Vitae, avoiding pregnancy is only permissible due to serious problems be they health of mother or unemployment.

We were never told that at pre Cana. I don’t think many catholics are aware of this. Or who can practice NFP.

 

[Monergistic]

Except that they never fully given themselves to one another.

This is completely false and it’s not ok for you to say. Retract, please.

 

[Monergistic]

If the purpose of sex is procreation and Natural Family Planning seeks to abrogate that, isn’t that the same thing as using a contraceptive?

“Some conclude that “natural family planning” is acceptable but “artificial” means are not. But this seems to overlook something significant: in both cases, you are still seeking to regulate when you have children. And so if one concludes that it is wrong to seek to regulate the timing and size of a family, then it would have to be concluded that natural family planning is just as wrong as “artificial” means. But if one concludes that it is appropriate to steward the timing and size of one’s family, then what makes “artificial” means wrong but natural family planning right? Surely it is not because God is “more free” to overrule our plans with natural family planning! Perhaps some have concluded that artificial forms are wrong because they allow one more fully to separate intercourse from the possibility of procreation. But if it is wrong to have intercourse without a significant possibility of procreation, then it would also be wrong to have intercourse during pregnancy or after a woman is past her childbearing years. There is no reason to conclude that natural family planning is appropriate but that “artificial” means are not.”

John Piper, 2006. Q&A thing on the Desiring God website. That sums it up nicely. Is a couple defying God when they take any action to plan and regulate the size of their family? If so, NFP does just that. But if it’s not that, what is the issue with artificial methods? If it is so wrong to decouple sex from babymaking, why not tell people to lay off during pregnancy or when you’re past childbearing years or if you’re infertile. Is it because such people are incapable of fully giving themselves to one another? With a bit of thought, that turns out to be obviously untrue.

The one thing that doesn’t mesh well with this thread is the idea that NFP leaves God with more freedom to override what you’re trying to do. To that point, it seems that several of these comments are rather proud of how NFP can be even more effective than some artificial means. No word yet on how many days a month you’re practicing celibacy (or maybe just have a massage followed by a cold shower), but it would seem that some Catholics here not only want to regulate the timing and number of children, but they want to prove they can do it better this way. I don’t see anyone cheering for the Quiverfull side at this point, but I might have missed it.

 

[edwest2]

The risks of contraception are manageable and in no way amount to credible medical evidence that can support some kind of argument for banning contraceptives due to health concerns. You do not have a credible argument from medicine, psychology, or academia in general. Yours is strictly a moral argument, and you might want to stay in your lane.

Here is the manufacturer package insert for one birth control pill:

drugs.com/pro/ortho-novum.html#WARNINGS

Scroll down to Warnings.

Peace,
Ed

 

[silentfactor80]

I know there are some risks. I am saying they’re manageable. What are you saying, and to what end. Are you brewing a conspiracy theory? Are you suggesting that medical science is working to hide serious, unmanageable risks from us for some fiendish reason? Or do you agree that medical science does its best to discover and distribute accurate information, including risk factors which are minor, manageable, and nothing to get condoms banned over?

Class action lawsuit for Mirena (drugrisk.com/mirena/class-action-lawsuit)
Class action lawsuit for Yaz (drugrisk.com/yaz/class-action-lawsuit)

Why would anyone risk their spouses life even if only a small chance for some pleasure? That is where the sin is! Every form has some risk if only small. I would never risk my life or my spouses solely for pleasure.

 

[edwest2]

While I’m aware its not in line with Church teaching, I think the use of artificial contraception is justifiable in certain cases if NFP is not an effective option.

I think people don’t understand Natural Family Planning.

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1124

There is no Church teaching that justifies artificial contraception in terms of having or delaying having children.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I certainly think it’s justifiable to use artificial methods, for example, to avoid a high-risk pregnancy.

What kind of high-risk pregnancy?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I know there are some risks. I am saying they’re manageable. What are you saying, and to what end. Are you brewing a conspiracy theory? Are you suggesting that medical science is working to hide serious, unmanageable risks from us for some fiendish reason? Or do you agree that medical science does its best to discover and distribute accurate information, including risk factors which are minor, manageable, and nothing to get condoms banned over?

Medical science is done by humans and is sometimes manipulated by other humans for profit.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I am not saying if I am for or against contraception, but NFP is doing exact what contraception does just in a different way, no matter how you look at it; however, the church says it is an acceptable manner. ???

For those who want to speak about the bad medical effects of contraception, are you concerned about the garbage people are eating or the amount of alcohol that is consumed in the world. There are plenty of people that want to talk about the medical side affects of contraception that don’t want to stop drinking or loose the 40 pounds that is slowly killing there heart. People are funny that way?

Yes, the Church promotes NFP. So what? You don’t have to buy a contraceptive to use it. So no, no contraceptives are involved in NFP. That’s why it’s called Natural.

And don’t change the subject, OK?

Peace,
Ed

 

[gnosisofthomas]

GOSH Id like to meet you. I’ve never met someone who actually knwe better and more than God:blush:

I don’t believe for a second that was the True God.

That’s was about 4,000 years ago. tnink that may have had someting to do with this teaching?

So he can change his mind about things? Gee, maybe there’s still hope for gay marriage then, haha

 

[edwest2]

NFP is also used to enhance the chances of conception through a more accurate knowledge of when, exactly, the woman is most likely to conceive.

As far as comparing it to contraception, all other methods of family planning change a person’s fertility as designed by God by stopping the natural process of ovulation, or preventing the natural meeting of sperm and egg, or permanently stopping a natural function. A couple using NFP works within God’s design of their bodies instead of trying to change that design.

And as far as I know, the Old Testament practice was to not have relations during menstruation. That was when the woman was considered “unclean”. Maybe you can enlighten me; not that the Mosaic laws matter to us any longer anyway. Procreation is not the only reason to have relations. There is also the matter of bonding between husband and wife. Its just that procreation can never be removed from the equation.

What I don’t get is this: Why in the world is not every granola cruncher in the country jumping aboard the NFP ship? Forget the moral issues for the moment. It is more effective than contraception and completley natural while protecting our water sytems from being polluted with female hormones which are actually changing the sex ratio of fish and damaging their populations.

There’s no money in NFP, and some have been brainwashed to believe having multiple orgasms is the goal. Babies? OOOH. Messy, time-consuming. And I’m responsible for 18 years? Who wants that?

Who cares about fish? Having lots and lots of sex is all that matters.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Monergistic]

Class action lawsuit for Mirena (drugrisk.com/mirena/class-action-lawsuit)
Class action lawsuit for Yaz (drugrisk.com/yaz/class-action-lawsuit)

Why would anyone risk their spouses life even if only a small chance for some pleasure? That is where the sin is! Every form has some risk if only small. I would never risk my life or my spouses solely for pleasure.

This information is generally most applicable to people who intend to use some form of contraception while avoiding certain drugs that are less safe. You know- like with any drug or medication that’s somewhat elective. It’s normal for certain drugs in any broad family to have some lawsuits tied to them. Take ED drugs, for example- mostly used for recreational purposes, btw. They get the full support of the CC, and they come with a substantial amount of risk as well. So let’s take a think at this and see if rare but sometimes serious side effects really has anything to do with anything here.

But I know you’re not supplying this information in order to help people do a better job of choosing contraception. I surmise that your concern for rare but serious risks is oddly targeted to just one type of drug, while that same concern is entirely absent when other drugs have potentially less rare and more serious side effects. And you already told me you don’t believe contraceptive drugs should be banned or controlled.

So I’m still trying to figure out why you want to keep coming into the medical science lane. To me, it seems like the argument from morality is the only lane for you. This appears to be a bit of a non sequitur.

 

[edwest2]

It’s healthy for a husband and wife to have sex between 150 and 200 times a year. Also, the way the world is now, it’s a rare family that’s realistically able to have a whole lot of babies, and smart women who know about high risk pregnancy will do what they can to prevent one starting at a particular age (which can depend on family history). So in order to try and have a healthy amount of sex while keeping the family size manageable, what do you do? Most Christians (including nearly all Catholics at this point) will consult a medical professional and carefully select some form of contraception. The effects are generally thus: there’s some manageable risks and side effects, couples can have more sex which is good for the marriage, families are better cared for, and I guess the unitive and procreative ends of sex are selectively decoupled. Which ultimately means- nothing really bad happens. At least not as a direct result of using contraception.

Nearly all Protestant pastors are married. Nearly all of them use or have used contraception. Virtually none of them have discovered that something unexpectedly heinous pops up on them. Objectively speaking, who has a better view of what’s happening? Celibate priests who want you to be scared of what might happen, or Protestant pastors who are right in it and have nothing special to report?

Do you really think the average Protestant pastor/priest is so jaded and blind to God’s will that they can be simultaneously steeped in the Christian religion and steeped in grave, mortal sin without beginning to show a glimmer of realization? Honestly, what seems more likely- that, or the hypothesis that celibate clergy are by definition a little out of touch with this thing?

Out of touch with what? The current mythology being spread that lots and lots of sex is healthy? The Church teaches that people who aren’t married should not be having sexual intercourse. If you don’t like what the Church teaches then just say so. In the meantime - we’re not Protestants.

Peace,
Ed

 

[LilyM]

I am not saying if I am for or against contraception, but NFP is doing exact what contraception does just in a different way, no matter how you look at it; however, the church says it is an acceptable manner. ???

For those who want to speak about the bad medical effects of contraception, are you concerned about the garbage people are eating or the amount of alcohol that is consumed in the world. There are plenty of people that want to talk about the medical side affects of contraception that don’t want to stop drinking or loose the 40 pounds that is slowly killing there heart. People are funny that way?

It’s healthy for a husband and wife to have sex between 150 and 200 times a year. Also, the way the world is now, it’s a rare family that’s realistically able to have a whole lot of babies, and smart women who know about high risk pregnancy will do what they can to prevent one starting at a particular age (which can depend on family history). So in order to try and have a healthy amount of sex while keeping the family size manageable, what do you do? Most Christians (including nearly all Catholics at this point) will consult a medical professional and carefully select some form of contraception. The effects are generally thus: there’s some manageable risks and side effects, couples can have more sex which is good for the marriage, families are better cared for, and I guess the unitive and procreative ends of sex are selectively decoupled. Which ultimately means- nothing really bad happens. At least not as a direct result of using contraception.

Nearly all Protestant pastors are married. Nearly all of them use or have used contraception. Virtually none of them have discovered that something unexpectedly heinous pops up on them. Objectively speaking, who has a better view of what’s happening? Celibate priests who want you to be scared of what might happen, or Protestant pastors who are right in it and have nothing special to report?

Do you really think the average Protestant pastor/priest is so jaded and blind to God’s will that they can be simultaneously steeped in the Christian religion and steeped in grave, mortal sin without beginning to show a glimmer of realization? Honestly, what seems more likely- that, or the hypothesis that celibate clergy are by definition a little out of touch with this thing?

“Some conclude that “natural family planning” is acceptable but “artificial” means are not. But this seems to overlook something significant: in both cases, you are still seeking to regulate when you have children. And so if one concludes that it is wrong to seek to regulate the timing and size of a family, then it would have to be concluded that natural family planning is just as wrong as “artificial” means. But if one concludes that it is appropriate to steward the timing and size of one’s family, then what makes “artificial” means wrong but natural family planning right? Surely it is not because God is “more free” to overrule our plans with natural family planning! Perhaps some have concluded that artificial forms are wrong because they allow one more fully to separate intercourse from the possibility of procreation. But if it is wrong to have intercourse without a significant possibility of procreation, then it would also be wrong to have intercourse during pregnancy or after a woman is past her childbearing years. There is no reason to conclude that natural family planning is appropriate but that “artificial” means are not.”

John Piper, 2006. Q&A thing on the Desiring God website. That sums it up nicely. Is a couple defying God when they take any action to plan and regulate the size of their family? If so, NFP does just that. But if it’s not that, what is the issue with artificial methods? If it is so wrong to decouple sex from babymaking, why not tell people to lay off during pregnancy or when you’re past childbearing years or if you’re infertile. Is it because such people are incapable of fully giving themselves to one another? With a bit of thought, that turns out to be obviously untrue.

The one thing that doesn’t mesh well with this thread is the idea that NFP leaves God with more freedom to override what you’re trying to do. To that point, it seems that several of these comments are rather proud of how NFP can be even more effective than some artificial means. No word yet on how many days a month you’re practicing celibacy (or maybe just have a massage followed by a cold shower), but it would seem that some Catholics here not only want to regulate the timing and number of children, but they want to prove they can do it better this way. I don’t see anyone cheering for the Quiverfull side at this point, but I might have missed it.

Regulating the size of a family (the end) is not the problem. Using artificial means to do so is. Especially when non-artificial means are possible and, properly used, equally effective with none of the risks.

And I don’t just mean medical, I mean the impact on relationships, on ABC being seen as a licence for fornication, adultery and so on. And worse, fertility and children coming to be seen as inconveniences and burdens rather than gifts and - wait for it - a natural and expected consequence of sex. Which they are, because even the best ABC fails, fairly often. Kinda like taking poison every day and expecting no effects because you have a 95% or 98% effective antidote

If I need $100, why would I rob someone to obtain it if I can legitimately work for a day or two? Same result, no risk.