Dangerous pregnancies, ABC, NFP

[CatholicSooner]

If two actions have in mind the same end result, can we say they are the same? Equally acceptable? Your argument is that we can!

never once was that said. In this instance I see no difference

Many posts have pointed out clear differences between NFP and ABC. The Will of God (which is that we make good choices, not about if/when you get pregnant) has also been discussed.

To have a discussion, which is the purpose of this site, you need to address the opinions expressed, not simply state opinions.

Lol this is a joke of a response. Bc you don’t like my opinion this is what you post. Why don’t you address my expressed opinion?

If God can will a child be conceived during infertile times surely he can will a person get pregnant while using abc.

My opinion is not that abc is right. It is questioning if nfp is wrong bc it is used as a way to take procreation out of sex. Period. You can come back with some theological excuse but that is what it is. An excuse.

I truly believe nfp was formed to deal with the churches teaching on contraceptives to appease members of the church.

 

[Rau]

never once was that said. In this instance I see no difference

Lol this is a joke of a response. Bc you don’t like my opinion this is what you post. Why don’t you address my expressed opinion?

If God can will a child be conceived during infertile times surely he can will a person get pregnant while using abc.

My opinion is not that abc is right. It is questioning if nfp is wrong bc it is used as a way to take procreation out of sex. Period. You can come back with some theological excuse but that is what it is. An excuse.

I truly believe nfp was formed to deal with the churches teaching on contraceptives to appease members of the church.

 

[Rau]

Lol this is a joke of a response. Bc you don’t like my opinion this is what you post. Why don’t you address my expressed opinion?

LOL. I didn’t respond to your “opinion” because:

• you’ve not yourself said anything that hasn’t already had responses in the prior 100 posts;
• you’ve offered no response or criticism to the contents of those prior posts. I invite you to “converse” with other posters (as you are now doing with me) - identify where you believe the other posters have made an error in reasoning, or what assumptions they use that differ from yours.

If God can will a child be conceived during infertile times surely he can will a person get pregnant while using abc.

All true, but not part of the Church’s reasoning on the wrongs of ABC. God is God and can do as he pleases But this is not how the world proceeds - do you feel your life is akin to that of a puppet, or do you feel the need to make decisions “in accordance with God’s will?” And what does that last phrase mean - it means “make decisions which favour what is good and right” (for you can do no better than that). Catholic difficulties with contraception are not about “preventing God causing someone to become pregnant”. First - God does not generally set about bringing about pregnancies, and second - were he of a mind to do so, do you think we Catholics think people could succeed in defeating him:shrug:?

My opinion is not that abc is right. It is questioning if nfp is wrong bc it is used as a way to take procreation out of sex. Period. You can come back with some theological excuse but that is what it is. An excuse.

Clearly, ABC takes (or seeks to take) procreation out of sex - on this I think we agree.

NFP does not take procreation out of sex. It abstains from sex! It says - “well, if you are not ready for a child, don’t have sex when you are fertile”. A huge difference! God designed women with a cycle wherein there is a fertile period and an infertile period - pretty sensible when you think about it! There is no obligation to be having sex at any point in the cycle or at any regularity. There is no obligation to hope for a child whenever you have sex. But the Church teaches - when you do have sex, allow it to proceed as designed.

 

[AJ744]

Humanae Vitae is not an infallible encyclical, nor is any encyclical infallible unless spoken ex cathedra. There are only two documented cases of ex cathedra: Immaculate Conception and Assumption.

We should take a lesson from the Eastern Orthodox and evaluate birth control on a case by case pastoral level.

 

[CatholicSooner]

LOL. I didn’t respond to your “opinion” because:

• you’ve not yourself said anything that hasn’t already had responses in the prior 100 posts;
• you’ve offered no response or criticism to the contents of those prior posts. I invite you to “converse” with other posters (as you are now doing with me) - identify where you believe the other posters have made an error in reasoning, or what assumptions they use that differ from yours.

All true, but not part of the Church’s reasoning on the wrongs of ABC. God is God and can do as he pleases But this is not how the world proceeds - do you feel your life is akin to that of a puppet, or do you feel the need to make decisions “in accordance with God’s will?” And what does that last phrase mean - it means “make decisions which favour what is good and right” (for you can do no better than that). Catholic difficulties with contraception are not about “preventing God causing someone to become pregnant”. First - God does not generally set about bringing about pregnancies, and second - were he of a mind to do so, do you think we Catholics think people could succeed in defeating him:shrug:?

Clearly, ABC takes (or seeks to take) procreation out of sex - on this I think we agree.

NFP does not take procreation out of sex. It abstains from sex! It says - “well, if you are not ready for a child, don’t have sex when you are fertile”. A huge difference! God designed women with a cycle wherein there is a fertile period and an infertile period - pretty sensible when you think about it! There is no obligation to be having sex at any point in the cycle or at any regularity. There is no obligation to hope for a child whenever you have sex. But the Church teaches - when you do have sex, allow it to proceed as designed.

Well I didn’t feel like reading 100 plus posts of judgement and condemnation.

So you think that it is right to avoid pregnancy with nfp? But not avoid it with abc? Surely you can see how this is hypocritical. And yes nfp does take procreation out of sex if used to prevent procreation! Surely you can see this.

Using your reasoning for npf then I assume you are fine with condemns when a women is t fertile.

By only having sex when you can’t get pregnant you are having sex to have sex… NOT to procreate. This is why the church is against abc.

 

[Rau]

Well I didn’t feel like reading 100 plus posts of judgement and condemnation.

So you think that it is right to avoid pregnancy with nfp? But not avoid it with abc? Surely you can see how this is hypocritical. And yes nfp does take procreation out of sex if used to prevent procreation! Surely you can see this.

Using your reasoning for npf then I assume you are fine with condemns when a women is t fertile.

By only having sex when you can’t get pregnant you are having sex to have sex… NOT to procreate. This is why the church is against abc.

I think it is OK to use NFP to help increase the chances of a pregnancy. I think it OK to use NFP to avoid pregnancy when I have a good reason to do so. This implies I will abstain from sex during fertile times (the time when sex is most alluring, by the way).

With ABC - there is no requirement on me to abstain - I simply interfere with the sex act - stop ovulation, stop implantation, or stop the Semen being deposited where it properly belongs. And I get to have sex whenever I want, minus the consequences.

There is no teaching against abstaining from sex at times. There is no obligation to seek out a pregnancy whenever that is possible. There is nothing wrong with sex during the lengthy infertile period…known as menopause. There is nothing wrong with having sex during the infertile periods of the cycle. There is nothing wrong with continuing to have a sexual relationship during periods when I have a good reason not to become pregnant.

The Church does not oppose regulating pregnancies. It says, when you have sex, allow it to proceed naturally.

 

[AJ744]

Humanae Vitae is not an infallible encyclical, nor is any encyclical infallible unless spoken ex cathedra. There are only two documented cases of ex cathedra: Immaculate Conception and Assumption.

We should take a lesson from the Eastern Orthodox and evaluate birth control on a case by case pastoral level.

 

[CatholicSooner]

I think it is OK to use NFP to help increase the chances of a pregnancy. I think it OK to use NFP to avoid pregnancy when I have a good reason to do so. This implies I will abstain from sex during fertile times (the time when sex is most alluring, by the way).

With ABC - there is no requirement on me to abstain - I simply interfere with the sex act - stop ovulation, stop implantation, or stop the Semen being deposited where it properly belongs. And I get to have sex whenever I want, minus the consequences.

There is no teaching against abstaining from sex at times. There is no obligation to seek out a pregnancy whenever that is possible. There is nothing wrong with sex during the lengthy infertile period…known as menopause. There is nothing wrong with having sex during the infertile periods of the cycle. There is nothing wrong with continuing to have a sexual relationship during periods when I have a good reason not to become pregnant.

The Church does not oppose regulating pregnancies. It says, when you have sex, allow it to proceed naturally.

This is all good except you are leaving out a key ingredient of marriage and sex…to procreate.

 

[ahs]

This is all good except you are leaving out a key ingredient of marriage and sex…to procreate.

And such procreation a couple is open to when using NFP…unless you are about to explain:

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?
2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

The purpose of the Marriage is procreation AND unification…these two together, and primarily procreation. This does not mean that a couple must “intend”, per se, to achieve pregnancy at each marital embrace.

By the way, before you go responding to my later comment, I’d appreciate an answer to those 2 questions.

 

[CatholicSooner]

And such procreation a couple is open to when using NFP…unless you are about to explain:

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?
2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

The purpose of the Marriage is procreation AND unification…these two together, and primarily procreation. This does not mean that a couple must “intend”, per se, to achieve pregnancy at each marital embrace.

By the way, before you go responding to my later comment, I’d appreciate an answer to those 2 questions.

I don’t follow your questions.

If you are abstaining you are neither procreating or unifying.

 

[ahs]

I don’t follow your questions.

If you are abstaining you are neither procreating or unifying.

This assumes that a couple cannot experience unity without sex. At any rate, your comment, in response to the comment from Rau, suggests that a couple using NFP is not preserving the procreative nature of the marital embrace when they utilize NFP, or that they may somehow be removing the procreative nature from an act. Perhaps I misread your intent and you can clarify that you certainly do not believe this. But if you do believe it, then you will certainly have no problem understanding and being able to explain these:

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?
2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

 

[CatholicSooner]

This assumes that a couple cannot experience unity without sex. At any rate, your comment, in response to the comment from Rau, suggests that a couple using NFP is not preserving the procreative nature of the marital embrace when the utilize NFP, or that they may somehow be removing the procreative nature from an act. Perhaps I misread your intent and you can clarify that you certainly do not believe this. But if you do believe it, then you will certainly have no problem understanding and being able to explain these:

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?
2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

What act is not taking place? Sex is happening when a person knows they are not fertile.
In regards to two I don’t get what you are asking.

Seems to me that you should not have sex when you can procreate going off your guys definition of why abc is wrong

 

[ahs]

Well I didn’t feel like reading 100 plus posts of judgement and condemnation.

So you think that it is right to avoid pregnancy with nfp? But not avoid it with abc? Surely you can see how this is hypocritical. And yes nfp does take procreation out of sex if used to prevent procreation! Surely you can see this.

Using your reasoning for npf then I assume you are fine with condemns when a women is t fertile.

By only having sex when you can’t get pregnant you are having sex to have sex… NOT to procreate. This is why the church is against abc.

A bachelorette theologian whom I once greatly admired (and still do to some extent) once expressed a position in line with what you are saying. I wrote a response to it here:

daves-ahumbleservant.blogspot.com/2013/09/a-catholic-response-to-scandal-of-nfp.html

 

[bitterhope]

And such procreation a couple is open to when using NFP…unless you are about to explain:

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?
2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

The purpose of the Marriage is procreation AND unification…these two together, and primarily procreation. This does not mean that a couple must “intend”, per se, to achieve pregnancy at each marital embrace.

By the way, before you go responding to my later comment, I’d appreciate an answer to those 2 questions.

I agree that a couple does not need to intend to become pregnant each time, or even the majority of times, that they are intimate. The problem is that by utilizing NFP to avoid, a couple is intending to not become pregnant each time they have sex for as long as they are using NFP. I know that the Church does not teach that a couple has to have sex every day and it isn’t sinful to abstain. With NFP though it is only abstaining on days that a couple could possibly become pregnant. That is not just abstaining. That is having sex for pleasure only because you only don’t have sex when no life can be conceived. Sounds quite a bit like teasing God. “Yeah, I will accept a new life if you want to send one my way because I’m open to life, but I’m only going to be open to you giving me a new life if you send it on a day that is impossible (or unlikely) for you send it.”

 

[ahs]

What act is not taking place?

Do you mean in regards to couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy during the fertile period? “Sex” is the marital act which is not taking place during that time. So, when a couple does not engage in sex, how exactly might they be removing the procreative nature from a sex act which is not taking place??

[Contraception is wrong because it seeks to remove the procreative nature from an act which is taking place.]

Sex is happening when a person knows they are not fertile.

And this is wrong, WHY? [Please cite the pertinent authoritative Church doctrine.]

In regards to two I don’t get what you are asking.

When a couple engages in the marital act during an infertile period, and they complete that act in the natural manner, they are not removing the procreative nature from an act which is taking place. Therefore, this is nothing at all like contraception, which seeks to remove the procreative nature from an act which is taking place. Do you suppose that couples are only allowed to have sex during fertile windows? [Please cite authoritative Church doctrine.]

Seems to me that you should not have sex when you can procreate going off your guys definition of why abc is wrong

Contraception is wrong because it seeks to remove the procreative nature from an act [sexual intercourse] which is taking place.

Back to those 2 questions which have not been answered since I first saw them posted 2 years ago:

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?
2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

 

[ahs]

I agree that a couple does not need to intend to become pregnant each time, or even the majority of times, that they are intimate. The problem is that by utilizing NFP to avoid, a couple is intending to not become pregnant each time they have sex for as long as they are using NFP. I know that the Church does not teach that a couple has to have sex every day and it isn’t sinful to abstain. With NFP though it is only abstaining on days that a couple could possibly become pregnant. That is not just abstaining. That is having sex for pleasure only because you only don’t have sex when no life can be conceived. Sounds quite a bit like teasing God. “Yeah, I will accept a new life if you want to send one my way because I’m open to life, but I’m only going to be open to you giving me a new life if you send it on a day that is impossible (or unlikely) for you send it.”

Are we not allowed to enjoy sex as Married couples? And if you think it is the way that you explained it, I challenge you to practice NFP for a couple months and let me know how it goes as far as thinking that you are teasing God. I believe you will find quite the contrary…that no couple abstains during the fertile cycle unless they absolutely must (grave/just reasons). So far, my experience has been that people who object to NFP use are 1) not married or 2) have zero experience with it and/or 3) don’t actually know what NFP is.

 

[sanctareparata]

Sex is intended to be both open to life and unitive.

One cannot have ABC sex and be open to life. It’s not possible. ABC, by its very nature, is anti-life.

One can have “NFP” sex and be open to life because there are no artificial barriers in place. It’s just sex as God intended it, enjoyed at a time during a woman’s God-created window of infertility. Pregnancy could still occur, it’s just unlikely.

ABC vs NFP:

ABC: “I love you and I want to share myself with you. I want to give you all of me…but not my fertility. You can’t have that,” says a husband wearing a condom.
“I love you and I want to share my whole self with you. Except my womb. I won’t open that to you. And I want to receive all of you and unite myself wholly to you…except your sperm. I don’t want that,” says the wife.

NFP: “I love you and I want to share myself with you. I want to give you all of me…even my fertility. A complete self donation,” says a husband.
“I love you and I want to share my whole self with you. Even my womb. I won’t close it off to you. I want to receive all of you,” says the wife.

 

[CatholicSooner]

Do you mean in regards to couple using NFP to avoid pregnancy during the fertile period? “Sex” is the marital act which is not taking place during that time. So, when a couple does not engage in sex, how exactly might they be removing the procreative nature from a sex act which is not taking place??

[Contraception is wrong because it seeks to remove the procreative nature from an act which is taking place.]

And this is wrong, WHY? [Please cite the pertinent authoritative Church doctrine.]

When a couple engages in the marital act during an infertile period, and they complete that act in the natural manner, they are not removing the procreative nature from an act which is taking place. Therefore, this is nothing at all like contraception, which seeks to remove the procreative nature from an act which is taking place. Do you suppose that couples are only allowed to have sex during fertile windows? [Please cite authoritative Church doctrine.]

Contraception is wrong because it seeks to remove the procreative nature from an act [sexual intercourse] which is taking place.

Back to those 2 questions which have not been answered since I first saw them posted 2 years ago:

1. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?
2. How is it possible to remove the procreative nature of an act that is infertile by God’s design (the “infertile period”) when that act is being completed in the natural manner?

Oh my reread your post and tell me you your definition for why contraceptives are wrong does not mirror what nfp is. Wow c’mon.

 

[CatholicSooner]

Btw I’ll respond more tomorrow. It’s hard on a phone

 

[CatholicSooner]

Sex is intended to be both open to life and unitive.

One cannot have ABC sex and be open to life. It’s not possible. ABC, by its very nature, is anti-life.

One can have “NFP” sex and be open to life because there are no artificial barriers in place. It’s just sex as God intended it, enjoyed at a time during a woman’s God-created window of infertility. Pregnancy could still occur, it’s just unlikely.

ABC vs NFP:

ABC: “I love you and I want to share myself with you. I want to give you all of me…but not my fertility. You can’t have that,” says a husband wearing a condom.
“I love you and I want to share my whole self with you. Except my womb. I won’t open that to you. And I want to receive all of you and unite myself wholly to you…except your sperm. I don’t want that,” says the wife.

NFP: “I love you and I want to share myself with you. I want to give you all of me…even my fertility. A complete self donation,” says a husband.
“I love you and I want to share my whole self with you. Even my womb. I won’t close it off to you. I want to receive all of you,” says the wife.

Holy moly! Seriously read this.

You aren’t giving your fertility when you only have sex when you are infertile. Wow c’mon peoe. Use your brains