Dangerous pregnancies, ABC, NFP

[ahs]

Isn’t contraception cooperating with God’s design …

No, absolutely not. It is the exact opposite of cooperating with God’s design because it is the direct and purposeful attempt to thwart that design (of the Marital act) by removing the procreative nature of an act that is taking place…and act which, by God’s design, is ordered toward procreation.

 

[ahs]

Natural family planning is healthier, more holistic, and more respectful of relationships and a woman’s body. Otherwise, morally, I don’t personally see a difference.

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?
3. Is it okay for a Catholic to NOT have sex, and is it okay for a Catholic couple to have sex purposefully during the infertile period?

 

[1ke]

Question: if a husband & wife both want to have sex but don’t want to get pregnant so abstein…is that wrong?

No.

 

[CarrieSpooner]

Isn’t contraception cooperating with God’s design in that the couple is using their God given gift of intellect to determine when to have children and how to prayerfully space the children. Really just playing devil’s advocate… Because, in fact, my wife and I try to be obedient, but the logic behind why NFP is allowed and other natural forms are disallowed makes no sense.

No. That’s using your God given intellect and free will to go against God’s design. Would you also say that a person is cooperating with God’s design when he uses his intellect to decide to spit his food out instead of swallowing because he didn’t want to consume calories? How about if he used his intellect to force his feces back up into his colon? Just because one uses their mind to make a choice, doesn’t mean they are cooperating with God’s design. A woman is only fertile for a small window each month. God already gave us our bodies designed in a way that allows for sex when conception doesn’t happen.

 

[Country_Gal]

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?
3. Is it okay for a Catholic to NOT have sex, and is it okay for a Catholic couple to have sex purposefully during the infertile period?

I don’t understand your point, sorry.

 

[Robyn_p]

Isn’t contraception cooperating with God’s design in that the couple is using their God given gift of intellect to determine when to have children and how to prayerfully space the children. Really just playing devil’s advocate… Because, in fact, my wife and I try to be obedient, but the logic behind why NFP is allowed and other natural forms are disallowed makes no sense.

There’s still a big difference, because the act itself is a distortion and usurping of God’s design. My post before the one you quoted, #38 sort of addressed how the two are different, even though the intent and result are the same. Interested in what you think of that analogy I gave there. For me, that made everything click when someone told me that one, but what’s helpful to one person might not be for another so I’m interested in what you think of that.

But I’m glad to hear you and your wife are trying to follow the Church’s teaching, even if it doesn’t make sense yet. That takes amazing humility and I admire you for that. Really in the end that’s what matters. If we believe the Church is guided by God in her teaching, then why would we go against it? But if we say the Church got this teaching wrong, how can we trust anything the Church teaches? The divinity of Christ, the canon of Scripture…everything’s now in doubt. It really all does come down to authority and who Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to. Otherwise we risk making ourselves the sole arbiters of truth, and I don’t trust myself with that kind of burden. :nope:

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I don’t have time to read through the entire thread. Do remember that pregnancy can and does occur even when using ABC. Then the “Well, in your case, I think abortion might be justified.” comments begin.

I can’t see the logic there at all? How is being ok with ABC (I’m talking more about condoms here) deduce that abortion is ok?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

The intention is not the same - in one case they intend to avoid pregnancy while follow Church teachings, but in the other they intend to ignore Church teachings.

That argument assumed the church is completely right (infallible) on everything. For someone who hasn’t fully accepted the church, the argument “because the church says so” doesn’t work and to be honest never will. Even if I accepted the church fully, if a new teaching came into play, I would expect it to be logical, not against the bible, not contradict other teachings etc. god gave us reason for a reason.

Flip it round to catholic view on bible believing Christians…when they say “because the bible says so” and you are frustrated because they are not paying attention to the history of church fathers, tradition etc. the logic, reason and knowledge which is available to them.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Yes, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to avoid pregnancy. The sin is in engaging in an act while simultaneously seeking to remove the procreative power/nature of that act which is taking place. This does not happen during .

I know you see differently. But to me that sentence contradicts itself and is the main problem I have.

It’s like saying there is nothing wrong avoiding chocolate, the sin is taking the coco (chocolate) out of the cake (it’s still avoiding chocolate)

 

[on_the_hill]

But I can’t see anyone recommending to a woman in danger to “trust God” and forgo NFP, ABC etc. (and nor should they!) but needless to say, by using NFP your saying sorry God I don’t trust you, I’m going to abstain from sex to make sure I don’t get pregnant.

This a problem I find with it, too. Advocates of NFP will say that it is more effective than ABC in preventing pregnancy, and that it can be safely used by women who face dangerous pregnancies. While at the same time, it allows intercourse to remain ordered to procreation. If a woman is endangered by procreation, ordered to procreation is exactly what you don’t want.

What this means, to my sense, is that a woman who is endangered by pregnancy **and **who practices NFP **and **who gets pregnant has had herself endangered by God’s Will. I cannot accept the idea that God wills people to get sick and die.

When my neighbor got pregnant against her doctor’s advice, and she died as a result, was it God’s Will that she leave behind a husband and three young children, as well as lose the in-utero baby? It was, if anything, her free will that led to her death. She knew the risks and chose to take a chance. She lost. But that was not God’s Will.

 

[CarrieSpooner]

This a problem I find with it, too. Advocates of NFP will say that it is more effective than ABC in preventing pregnancy, and that it can be safely used by women who face dangerous pregnancies. While at the same time, it allows intercourse to remain ordered to procreation. If a woman is endangered by procreation, ordered to procreation is exactly what you don’t want.

What this means, to my sense, is that a woman who is endangered by pregnancy **and **who practices NFP **and **who gets pregnant has had herself endangered by God’s Will. I cannot accept the idea that God wills people to get sick and die.

When my neighbor got pregnant against her doctor’s advice, and she died as a result, was it God’s Will that she leave behind a husband and three young children, as well as lose the in-utero baby? It was, if anything, her free will that led to her death. She knew the risks and chose to take a chance. She lost. But that was not God’s Will.

You can’t “accept” that it could be God’s will for people to get sick and die? What are you saying then – that you think God’s will is for people to be healthy and live for ever in this form here on earth? I just wonder if you really comprehend what you are saying. This view almost seems to necessitate valuing life here on earth with sin more than life in His Kingdom with our glorified bodies. The point of this life on earth is not to be healthy and live this way for ever. Getting sick and dying is a key part of the plan. That’s how we attain life everlasting in union with God.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

You can’t “accept” that it could be God’s will for people to get sick and die? What are you saying then – that you think God’s will is for people to be healthy and live for ever in this form here on earth? I just wonder if you really comprehend what you are saying. This view almost seems to necessitate valuing life here on earth with sin more than life in His Kingdom with our glorified bodies. The point of this life on earth is not to be healthy and live this way for ever. Getting sick and dying is a key part of the plan. That’s how we attain life everlasting in union with God.

So can you explain my heart attack analogy? If you’ve seen it?

 

[CarrieSpooner]

So can you explain my heart attack analogy? If you’ve seen it?

If it’s the analogy I remember reading from you earlier, yes I can. When one has a heart attack, life saving medicine is used to try to restore the body back to it’s proper function. In the case of contraception, medicine is used to damage the body’s proper function. Big difference! The argument against contraception is not that we aren’t allowed to use our own free will. The argument is that our free will should be used to do the right thing.

As Fulton Sheen said, “Freedom for Christianity means neither the right to do what you please, nor the right to what you must, but rather the right to do whatever you ought. Ought implies order, law and justice.”

There is no sense in the idea that if we do what we are supposed to do, then we won’t get sick and die. One look at the history of Christian martyrs tells us otherwise. One look at Jesus tells us otherwise. The point is that we have free will so that we can do the right thing. So that we can chose right out of love. God does not force his truth on us. There is nothing wrong with taking certain means to try to heal your body when it malfunctions. But it may be God’s will for us to die anyway.

 

[ahs]

I don’t understand your point, sorry.

You don’t see the moral difference between contraception and NFP. I am showing you the moral difference. See below for a clarified version of the questions.

from ahs: Yes, and there is nothing wrong with wanting to avoid pregnancy. The sin is in engaging in an act while simultaneously seeking to remove the procreative power/nature of that act which is taking place. This does not happen during abstinence.

I know you see differently. But to me that sentence contradicts itself and is the main problem I have.

It’s like saying there is nothing wrong avoiding chocolate, the sin is taking the coco (chocolate) out of the cake (it’s still avoiding chocolate)

No, it would be more like trying to take the coacoa out of chocolate and still call it chocolate…but that’s still not a good analogy. In your analogy above, it appears that you view “contraception” as a similar act, with similar consequences as “abstinence”. How are contraception and abstinence alike in regards to the Marital Act?? You can get a better idea by answering these questions (which I am providing here for a 3rd time, still unanswered), which am I now also clarifying for another poster:

1. Couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy utilize ABSTINENCE as the means by which they avoid pregnancy. ] How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?
2. Couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy often DO engage in sex, on purpose, during the infertile window. Yet they STILL complete these act in the natural manner. ]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?
3. Some people say that because both contraception AND abstinence seek to avoid conception, that they are both morally equal. ]Is it okay for a Catholic to NOT have sex [at any given time], and is it okay for a Catholic couple to have sex purposefully during the infertile period? Are couples required to WANT to conceive during each Marital embrace, or are they rather required to complete the act naturally when they engage in it?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

You don’t see the moral difference between contraception and NFP. I am showing you the moral difference. See below for a clarified version of the questions.

No, it would be more like trying to take the coacoa out of chocolate and still call it chocolate…but that’s still not a good analogy. In your analogy above, it appears that you view “contraception” as a similar act, with similar consequences as “abstinence”. How are contraception and abstinence alike in regards to the Marital Act?? You can get a better idea by answering these questions (which I am providing here for a 3rd time, still unanswered), which am I now also clarifying for another poster:

1. Couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy utilize ABSTINENCE as the means by which they avoid pregnancy. ] How is it possible to remove the procreative nature from an act that is not taking place?
2. Couples using NFP to avoid pregnancy often DO engage in sex, on purpose, during the infertile window. Yet they STILL complete these act in the natural manner. ]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?
3. Some people say that because both contraception AND abstinence seek to avoid conception, that they are both morally equal. ]Is it okay for a Catholic to NOT have sex [at any given time], and is it okay for a Catholic couple to have sex purposefully during the infertile period? Are couples required to WANT to conceive during each Marital embrace, or are they rather required to complete the act naturally when they engage in it?

The reason I haven’t answered is it’s not NFP itself I have a problem with, and the questions relate to NFP.

I don’t understand why ABC is wrong and for me some of the arguments that people use against ABC, I can see in NFP but that is different to saying NFP is wrong.

I guess I should remember not everyone discusses the same way I do…ie I take the logic people use in their argument and turn it around. It’s the way I learn and understand. That is the problem I am having, the logic used to discredit ABC, I can use the same logic to discredit NFP…which for someone outside the church who has not accepted its authority yet, suggests it’s not entirely fallible.

Does that make more sense?.

PS I’m sorry I’m not understanding things the first or second time…but does that really matter? Pointing out the number of times something has been stated isn’t going to help!

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Let’s look at it this way.

How did God make it possible for humans to procreate? Through the marital act.

The marital act brings about little people, each of which is made in the image and likeness of God. So that means that the marital act is special and unique, and blessed.

So why does the Church prohibit contraception? Partly because marriage is called to be fruitful. But the other very important reason that the marital act should not be corrupted, because of it’s extreme beauty and importance.

How can it be corrupted?

Pre marital relations, adultery, masturbation, etc etc.

Are these things all wrong for different reasons? No they are all wrong for the same reason, that the marital act should not ever be corrupted.

So, sometimes a couple needs to limit the number of children or increase the space between the children.

How is that possible without corrupting the act?

Contraception? No.

Periodic abstinence. Yes.

Why? Because each and every time a couple comes together the act is one where a baby could occur. It might not be possible for the woman to conceive at that time. But nothing is done to cause her to be infertile. She just is at that time.

Most of the time when a couple comes together, the wife won’t conceive. Even families with 10 kids.

Couples should be generous to each other. But generosity does not have to mean let’s have the most amount of children possible, although it could.

But using myself as an example, there have been times where we’ve had to abstain a whole lot.

1 example is after my father died suddenly I fell into a deep period of mourning, where I would be barely able to get up to go to work. We abstained, and my husband was “generous” to me because he put his needs on the back burner while I was a basket case.

Another couple might have been “generous” a different way.

When a couple uses NFP, each member needs to balance their own personal needs, to that of the spouse, to that of the children.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[ahs]

The reason I haven’t answered is it’s not NFP itself I have a problem with, and the questions relate to NFP.

I don’t understand why ABC is wrong and for me some of the arguments that people use against ABC, I can see in NFP but that is different to saying NFP is wrong.

I guess I should remember not everyone discusses the same way I do…ie I take the logic people use in their argument and turn it around. It’s the way I learn and understand. That is the problem I am having, the logic used to discredit ABC, I can use the same logic to discredit NFP…which for someone outside the church who has not accepted its authority yet, suggests it’s not entirely fallible.

Does that make more sense?.

PS I’m sorry I’m not understanding things the first or second time…but does that really matter? Pointing out the number of times something has been stated isn’t going to help!

Well, you can rejoice in the fact that your question has already been answered here, in posts 12 and 14 if I recall.

ABC is wrong because it seeks to remove the procreative nature from the sexual act…an act which is naturally ordered by God to be procreative.

People who use NFP to avoid do not do that. Rather than remove the procreative nature from an act, they instead abstain from the act.

 

[ahs]

I guess I should remember not everyone discusses the same way I do…ie I take the logic people use in their argument and turn it around. It’s the way I learn and understand.

With all due respect, it seems you only do that with people who use faulty logic when trying to defend NFP. The CORRECT logic for NFP is what I have been putting forward in this thread, and you have made no attempt at all to turn it around and see it from your perspective. I am saying that the REAL comparison here is “contraception” vs. “abstinence”.
That’s the logic I am using. Using that logic, please now turn it around the way you say that you do. A good starting point will be in answering those 3 questions, that clearly show the logic I am using, as well as the difference between ABC and NFP.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… I cannot accept the idea that God wills people to get sick and die.
…

God does not directly “will” for people to get sick and die. Let’s go back to the beginning. From Genesis Chapter 2: 16-17 “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

God warned Adam, but Adam thought he knew better than God. It was sin that brought death into the world. Romans 6:23, “The wages of sin is death. but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ Our Lord.”

Just because God allows people to get sick and die (at young or old ages) that does not mean He directly will for death to happen. The will of God is a tough thing to grasp and it’s beyond our comprehension. But there are different forms of His will. Sometimes He directly intervenes to make something happen or to stop is from happening. But much of God’s will is more “passive” of sorts. It is His will that we have free will. That means that He wills for us to be able to freely violate His will. (There’s a book called “Self Abandonment to Divine Providence” that explains this far better than I just did.)

People get sick and die. The life expectancy of humans is measured in years, not centuries. With the possible exception of Elijah and Mary, people don’t leave this world alive. If a young mother survives the birth of the most complicated of pregnancies and avoids all future pregnancies, she’s still not likely to be alive on this earth in a hundred years, but she’ll be some place. Jesus offers us eternal life. If we want what He offers, then we should follow Him and His Church.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Well, you can rejoice in the fact that your question has already been answered here, in posts 12 and 14 if I recall.

ABC is wrong because it seeks to remove the procreative nature from the sexual act…an act which is naturally ordered by God to be procreative.

People who use NFP to avoid do not do that. Rather than remove the procreative nature from an act, they instead abstain from the act.

This is what I meant, you can post “because it isn’t unitive or procreative” constantly, I don’t see that logic or understand that argument.

Although this has made me think of another point…my marriage is great, I feel very close to my husband and if we are one! We feel united. Why would I then start using something (NFP) which others have claimed to damage their marriage?