Contraception...Your beliefs?

[Monergistic]

But the meat eaters have a certain level of junk science of their own. Just look at all those body builders who have been told they have to eat huge amounts of meat for the protein, when in reality they probably don’t need so much protein and they would be much better off getting what they need from a mix of animal and plant sources rather than just meat.

Besides which, it’s not like the junk is equally balanced on both sides. There seems to be an abundance of reputable science showing that there are lots of health benefits to being vegan and few if any corresponding benefits to eating more than moderate amounts of meat, eggs and dairy.

Bodybuilders try their best to do what works. It is a competition, after all. The health benefits generally aren’t the focus, but if you’re facing a choice between whey and soy supplements, the science behind the comparisons is good. Generally inconclusive in this and most other instances, but that’s normal for good science. It trundles along being inconclusive most of the time, until eventually it isn’t. If you’re lucky.

Anyway, if we can eventually return to the original point of the example, it’s about a pre-existing moral bias which, while totally fine to have, must be addressed upfront rather than ignored so as to appear unbiased while pretending to reach a certain conclusion for reasons that aren’t your real reasons. Vegans give you both examples- dietary vegans do it strictly for dietary reasons, so their process is simply guided by what works for a good diet. It might not win you a bodybuilding competition, but it’s pretty reliable for health and longevity. Fur Is Murder vegans, however, have some serious morality-based objections from the fringe. Those moral objections are of primary importance, and it would be disingenuous for an ethical vegan to pretend that they get where they’re going for other reasons and not for that one at all.

Likewise, you’ve got some Catholics who actually believe contraception is immoral- a fringe morality-based objection to which nearly all Christians, Catholic included, have none. But for reasons that remain unclear to me, sometimes those same Catholics choose to stay far away from the moral issue and act like they get where they’re going for a host of other reasons. That’s why I keep saying stay in that lane, at least as a starting point that you do more than briefly touch base with. If we don’t talk about the real reason why you guys don’t like contraception, we’re being disingenuous. And by we, I mean you.

 

[mark_a]

In most of the mainline denominations, it has to do with clergy getting married. There was an uncomfortable transitional period where clergy were limiting the size of their families for very practical reasons while still being against contraception on paper. Gradually, the stuff on paper developed to match the practical realities of life for both clergy and laity.

yep!!

 

[BA11]

You mention “unbiased” studies. Let me guess, those are the ones you agree with so that makes them “unbiased?” Typical.

No, I’m talking about studies not funded and conducted by entities out to prove birth control is evil. The crux of many religiously biased studies is that they used flawed sample sizes and simply fail to publish results if the outcome isnt to their liking. Real academic research produces and publishes surprisingly unexpected findings all the time, and I even said “most” meaning there are a select few such studies which did indicate slightly higher levels of abortofacient effects. Most have not.

The perfect use rate for most contraceptives is 1 in 100, not 10000. I’m not sure I would trust a physician that gets his 0’s wrong.

This is correct, the problem is that you don’t understand perfect use-failure rates. The 1/100 statistic is how frequently a woman gets pregnant with perfect use, not how often an “abortion” occurs. In fact, statistically speaking stopping implantation would be factored into the 99/100 as it is deemed a success in terms of preventing pregnancy. This is one reason why it’s so hard to study the issue. The tests that have done their best to do so indicate, on the whole, a much lower rate of preventing implantation than actual pregnancy. This also indicates that the thinning of the uterine lining is not nearly as extreme as many claim and is non-existent in many women and certain combined birth control pills. In other words, women on combined birth control are far more likely to get pregnant if the egg is fertilized than to prevent implantation.

NFP’s perfect use rate is as good as the Pill without all the side effects. Logic would dictate NFP is the better option. Lots of physicans say the exact opposite of what you say like Dr. Thomas Hilgers and Dr. Helene Alvare.

The problem is that the majority of lay people are not nearly precise enough in their understanding of the woman’s cycle to constitute perfection. With the NFP method, hours sometimes makes the difference and very special care must be taken. Perfect NFP is significantly more difficult to obtain.

Finally, “lots” of physicians don’t contradict what I’ve said. Those that do are simply factually wrong. Now, some DO take the moral ground and claim fertilization is when life truly begins but they would admit that is NOT a scientific opinion but a personal one. I’m perfectly ok with that, but I get upset when people try and demonize them by claiming faulty science.

 

[mark_a]

Is having a beer a sin just because some people are alcoholics? Is sex itself sinful because people abuse it? Are guns inherently immoral because some people use them for murder? Likewise, is birth control a sin simply because some use it as a crutch and let it lead to bad relationships?

You’re not a fan of Humanae Vitae, I suspect.

Anyways, the Church never taught having a beer was a sin or that guns are inherently immoral.

 

[BA11]

You’re not a fan of Humanae Vitae, I suspect.

I’m a fan of all God-fearing christians, though I do’t always agree with all of them.

Anyways, the Church never taught having a beer was a sin or that guns are inherently immoral.

I know, that was the point. The argument that birth control is wrong because it leads to sexual immorality in some is flawed IMO. Those who use it responsibly within the context of a loving, god-centered marriage get thrown under the bus.

 

[KathleenGee]

Jericho,

My grandmotbers were born around the turn of the 20th century. Their mothers each had 14 children, but a number of them did not live to adulthood. Also on my mother’s side, there are two sets of identical twins. On my paternal grandmother’s side, we visited with relatives that remained in the area of the state where she was born. They think her mother may have had this Rh factor with her blood as most of her losses were at childbirth.

But overall, those who practice natural family planning have the lowest divorce rates. And I listened to a woman physician on EWTN’s Catholic women’s panel, who gave very good evidence of the danger of the pill.

Yes, as the dr explains, one can get pregnant by being a couple of hours off. But then God allowed this baby to be conceived and He provides.

 

[concretecamper]

After all the thought out arguments are made…it is all reduced to this. Not your will be done Lord…my will will be done.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[WingsOfEagles]

The problem with the NFP-low divorce rate connection is that NFP is generally only practiced by your most extreme Christians as a method of spacing out children. These couples are generally also anti-divorce. There are also a lot of good Christians who use artificial methods, but their staying married gets grouped in with non-Christians who are divorcing left and right, so their divorce-rate statistic gets skewed.

 

[BA11]

After all the thought out arguments are made…it is all reduced to this. Not your will be done Lord…my will will be done.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

This is a fair and noble argument. If you feel convicted and your conscience tells you birth control is wrong, then it probably is wrong for you. Just like people who are convicted about alcohol shouldnt drink, people who are convicted about certain types of music shouldnt listen, etc.

Ignoring a personal conviction is sinful IMO even if the thing you’re convicted of isnt inherently sinful.

 

[concretecamper]

@ba11: situational ethics is not somewhere a moral person wants to go.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[BA11]

@ba11: situational ethics is not somewhere a moral person wants to go.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Situational ethics are all around us as christians. Alcohol isnt inherently sinful, but alcoholics should probably avoid drinking. Movies arent inherently sinful, but lustful hearts should probably avoid certain films and scenes.

 

[CatholicofAgora]

I actually just posted a thread, saying:

"Honestely, it seems like nfp causes a lot of strain on marital life. It makes it seem like sleeping in the same bed with your own spouse is sleeping with temptation. I just don’t understand. It seems as though the only difference between using nfp and using contraception is more or less sex. You say it’s an issue of trusting God? Well I don’t see how a peice of latex is going to get between me and the will of the Divine Creator. If he wants me to have a kid, I don’t think my pinky-ring going to stop him. You say it’s an issue of being open to life? Well counting your ‘safe days’ to have sex on the two or three of them that you can isn’t a very “lets get pregnant!” attitude, either. You’re upset with me for not “throwing caution to the wind” and having more Catholic babies? What if I already have three or four?

My point is, I just don’t see any reason why there should be so much strain on marital relationships. I’m not married, I don’t have sex, I strongly believe in the legitimacy of the Catholic faith, but I find it difficult to tell others to stay faithful to the Church’s teaching when I don’t even find it necessary. I’ve been struggling with trying to reconcile with this teaching for some time. I used to say that I just don’t get it, now I’m thinking it just doesn’t make sense.

I’m not trying to sound arrogant, I’m just genuinely trying to tell you that it just doesn’t make sense to me. I’m not trying to place myself above the Church, but how am I supposed to defend something that deep down I know doesn’t make sense?"

 

[Eric09]

Finally, “lots” of physicians don’t contradict what I’ve said. Those that do are simply factually wrong.

Such a humble soul…

 

[truthseeker32]

I have long struggled with this issue. It is one of my major stumbling blocks, and I find myself dead set in the middle.

I think that the contraceptive mentality that perpetuates the idea that humans have a right to have consequence free sex in society is indeed harmful, but I think Orthodox Christianity and Mormonism are good examples of how a married couple can use contraception without having a contraceptive mentality. There is a middle road where contraception can be used only for serious reasons, not simply for selfish/ carnal reasons.

I struggle with the idea that if a couple who already has seven kids wants to have sex they have to be open to having a 8th and possibly 9th, 10th, 11th… child as well, or thay are being sinful.

 

[BA11]

Such a humble soul…

It has nothing to do with being humble or arrogant, it has to do with ignoring facts to perpetuate an agenda. If I said the sun orbits the earth and you refused to acknowledge that as a valid position, are you lacking humility?

Any doctor who claims that sustainable life begins at fertilization is a valid scientific opinion is wrong, plain and simple. A zygote that has yet to implant is no more capable of becoming a person than an unfertilized egg. It is no different than an articially inseminated egg sitting on a petri dish. However, an implanted zygote can then grow into a person. The idea that life beings at fertilization is a personal moral/religious matter. This is proven by the fact that many infertile women have no trouble accomplishing fertilization but their uterus does not allow for implantation.

 

[BA11]

I’m not trying to sound arrogant, I’m just genuinely trying to tell you that it just doesn’t make sense to me. I’m not trying to place myself above the Church, but how am I supposed to defend something that deep down I know doesn’t make sense?"

Probably the #1 reason I’m not catholic. I agree with more catholic teachings than most non-catholics, but I could never personally convince myself of several of the churches dogmatic teachings and thus couldnt really be a catholic even if I wanted to be. If I can’t in good conscience believe even one dogmatic teaching, then what’s the point?

 

[ComeHome2Rome]

I actually just posted a thread, saying:

"Honestely, it seems like nfp causes a lot of strain on marital life. It makes it seem like sleeping in the same bed with your own spouse is sleeping with temptation. I just don’t understand. It seems as though the only difference between using nfp and using contraception is more or less sex. You say it’s an issue of trusting God? Well I don’t see how a peice of latex is going to get between me and the will of the Divine Creator. If he wants me to have a kid, I don’t think my pinky-ring going to stop him. You say it’s an issue of being open to life? Well counting your ‘safe days’ to have sex on the two or three of them that you can isn’t a very “lets get pregnant!” attitude, either. You’re upset with me for not “throwing caution to the wind” and having more Catholic babies? What if I already have three or four?

My point is, I just don’t see any reason why there should be so much strain on marital relationships. I’m not married, I don’t have sex, I strongly believe in the legitimacy of the Catholic faith, but I find it difficult to tell others to stay faithful to the Church’s teaching when I don’t even find it necessary. I’ve been struggling with trying to reconcile with this teaching for some time. I used to say that I just don’t get it, now I’m thinking it just doesn’t make sense.

I’m not trying to sound arrogant, I’m just genuinely trying to tell you that it just doesn’t make sense to me. I’m not trying to place myself above the Church, but how am I supposed to defend something that deep down I know doesn’t make sense?"

I like things to make sense too my understanding is that nfp is only ‘okay’ if there is a very serious reason to not have another child, like the mom has cancer that can’t be treated if she were to get pregnant so it’s not like it’s used, legitimately, to prevent pregnancy just because the couple doesn’t want another child at the moment. It has to be a grave reason.

 

[CatholicofAgora]

Probably the #1 reason I’m not catholic. I agree with more catholic teachings than most non-catholics, but I could never personally convince myself of several of the churches dogmatic teachings and thus couldnt really be a catholic even if I wanted to be. If I can’t in good conscience believe even one dogmatic teaching, then what’s the point?

Well, after I learned about the Real Presence, there was no possible way I could resist the actual body and blood of Christ -absolutely no way. To me, that is worth more than any heart-filled sermon my pastor had and my dreams of becoming a pastor myself.

 

[BA11]

Well, after I learned about the Real Presence, there was no possible way I could resist the actual body and blood of Christ -absolutely no way. To me, that is worth more than any heart-filled sermon my pastor had and my dreams of becoming a pastor myself.

If you don’t mind my asking, what convinced you of the real presence and the doctrine of transubstantiation? I come from a baptist backgrund as well so I’m curious.

 

[CatholicofAgora]

If you don’t mind my asking, what convinced you of the real presence and the doctrine of transubstantiation? I come from a baptist backgrund as well so I’m curious.

The Bible! I’ll PM you…