Dangerous pregnancies, ABC, NFP

[ahs]

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.

If my explanation for why contraceptives are wrong mirrors what NFP is, the you will have no problem at all answering those 2 questions that have gone ignored for (who knows how long) the past 2 years that I have seen them asked:

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?

Go ahead…answer away and show me why NFP is akin to contraception.

 

[sanctareparata]

“use your brains?”

Okay.

What did I say? Who was fertile in that scenario? The husband; who is likely fertile in every sexual act.

What is the wife saying? That her womb is open. That she’s going to receive every part of her husband, wholly, completely, perfectly. No part of her is artificially blocked by a diaphram, hormonal abc or spermicide.

 

[ahs]

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

Here you are resorting to logical fallacy ( I ignored the ad hominem against me out of charity, but perhaps I should not have). When you must resort to fallacious reasoning to defend your position, you have lost the debate, so says the ancient philosophers. Cheers.

 

[CatholicSooner]

If my explanation for why contraceptives are wrong mirrors what NFP is, the you will have no problem at all answering those 2 questions that have gone ignored for (who knows how long) the past 2 years that I have seen them asked:

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?

Go ahead…answer away and show me why NFP is akin to contraception.

I have answered them. I will in more detail tomorrow on a computer

 

[CatholicSooner]

Here you are resorting to logical fallacy ( I ignored the ad hominem against me out of charity, but perhaps I should not have). When you must resort to fallacious reasoning to defend your position, you have lost the debate, so says the ancient philosophers. Cheers.

Hypocricy knows no bounds

 

[ahs]

“use your brains?”

Okay.

What did I say? Who was fertile in that scenario? The husband; who is likely fertile in every sexual act.

What is the wife saying? That her womb is open. That she’s going to receive every part of her husband, wholly, completely, perfectly. No part of her is artificially blocked by a diaphram, hormonal abc or spermicide.

You stated the facts exactly as they are, in a beautiful way. I only hope that I can learn to present the facts as charitably and honestly as you did. Why someone would attempt to turn that into a personal attack in an effort to discredit your position is another matter.

 

[ahs]

I have answered them. I will in more detail tomorrow on a computer

You have answered nothing, but I do look forward to tomorrow. Have a good night.

In Christ,
Dave

By the way, show me my hypocricy so that I can apologize. Otherwise, why do you falsely accuse me?

 

[Rau]

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

You mean, “it’s all good”, but “it’s not all good?” Which sentence(s) exactly that I wrote is/are wrong?

But, why do you think we must always be desiring pregnancy when we have sex? If so, a more fitting design of the female body would have had pregnancy a possibility throughout the month (or at least more than the week that is typically fertile).

CatholicSooner - can I ask your opinion on this question: “Is using NFP to avoid, when one has good reason” morally OK, or morally wrong? [Not looking for a comparison with ABC - just wanting to understand whether “informed abstinence” is morally OK in your opinion.]

 

[Rau]

Oh my reread your post and tell me you your definition for why contraceptives are wrong does not **mirror **what NFP is.

I thought ahs was really clear, but I can restate his thoughts as follows:

Contraception: is wrong because it seeks to remove the procreative nature from the sex act which is taking place

This is **not **mirrored by NFP.

NFP: no act occurs. We deny ourselves the act, rather than debase it.

There are 2 separate points here:

1. ABC and NFP are different in “means”, and different in consequence for the couple (though the intended ends may be the same);
2. That ABC is wrong because it separates the aspects of the sex act. This is a Catholic teaching, set out in various writings, including:

Humanae Vitae
vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Theology of the Body
google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicpreaching.com%2Fcontent%2Fdocs%2FTOB.pdf&ei=uMVpU8P4GNDDkAXX5YGABA&usg=AFQjCNG2DQ0icbKtpD8C0gtUTjl7nEwPww

Item 1 should not be in debate - the difference is factual and obvious.

Item 2 is theological and reasoned teaching - but, if one reads the above documents, and finds no merit in what is said, well , I’m not sure what more can be said.

 

[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.

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.

I am married. I have used NFP, not for months but for years. I know exactly what NFP is and have used two different methods. At the time, no, I did not look at it as teasing God. Looking back on it now I realize it. We did abstain for reasons that were not grave/serious/just simply because we did not want another child. Of course married couple are allowed to enjoy sex, but if it is only done for enjoyment, it is only unitive, not procreative.

 

[Rau]

I am married. I have used NFP, not for months but for years. I know exactly what NFP is and have used two different methods. At the time, no, I did not look at it as teasing God. Looking back on it now I realize it. We did abstain for reasons that were not grave/serious/just simply because we did not want another child. Of course married couple are allowed to enjoy sex, but if it is only done for enjoyment, it is only unitive, not procreative.

Sex, without the intention of conceiving, can be perfectly “procreative”. It ceases to be procreative only if it is interfered with (eg. by use of ABC), or if the man ejaculates not inside the woman. The natural fertility of the woman (or man for that matter) at the time of the act, and whether or not man/woman are aware of their fertility, is not relevant.

 

[bitterhope]

Sex, without the intention of conceiving, can be perfectly “procreative”. It ceases to be procreative only if it is interfered with (eg. by use of ABC), or if the man ejaculates not inside the woman. The natural fertility of the woman (or man for that matter) at the time of the act, and whether or not man/woman are aware of their fertility, is not relevant.

Using NFP to avoid is sex with the intention of NOT conceiving.

A couple does not need to intend to conceive every time they are intimate, but a couple should not intend to NOT conceive EVERY TIME they are intimate.

And no, I don’t get how purposely avoiding a woman’s fertile time month after month can be procreative. A couple that is intending to not procreate does not have procreative sex.

The Church says NFP can be used as an alternative to total abstinence in serious situations. Since it is supposed to be an alternative to abstinence it seems that it is allowed simply because people tend to be weak. Starting when the Protestants started allowing birth control and the Catholic Church was still holding strong to truth, NFP starts gaining ground in acceptance. Before that it was not widely used or accepted.

I’m done with debating this because these threads always go down hill quickly. Not a single thing is ever accomplished by these debates. It’s silly to keep going around and around in circles.

 

[Rau]

Using NFP to avoid is sex with the intention of NOT conceiving.

A couple does not need to intend to conceive every time they are intimate, but a couple should not intend to NOT conceive EVERY TIME they are intimate.

And no, I don’t get how purposely avoiding a woman’s fertile time month after month can be procreative. A couple that is intending to not procreate does not have procreative sex.

The Church says NFP can be used as an alternative to total abstinence in serious situations. Since it is supposed to be an alternative to abstinence it seems that it is allowed simply because people tend to be weak. Starting when the Protestants started allowing birth control and the Catholic Church was still holding strong to truth, NFP starts gaining ground in acceptance. Before that it was not widely used or accepted.

You are right that, in general, a couple should not intend to NOT conceive EVERY TIME they are intimate. A couple with that intent prior to marriage should not have married at all. Subsequently though, a couple may discover a reason (eg. medical) that causes them to avoid for the remainder of their married life. This is not wrong. And their sex acts do not cease to be pro-creative.

The Church teaches that **EVERY **sex act must be both unitive and procreative. The Church also allows sex after menopause and it allows NFP to be used for indefinite lengths of time when good reasons exist. So even when avoiding for long period of time, sex may be (indeed is required to be) pro-creative.

The meaning of the word “procreative” in the area of marital relations may not be what you read in a dictionary or imagine the word to mean. The meaning as used in Humanae Vitae is as I’ve used it. It characterises an individual marital embrace - not some average measure of how often sex was had during a fertile time vs. infertile time. Sex does not cease to be ‘procreative’ when a couple chooses to space children by 2 or 3 years. It does not cease to be procreative where medical circumstances urge the avoidance of pregnancy for 10 years.

Now, NFP (to avoid) used month after month **for no good reason **is counter to Church teaching, but the sex acts themselves have not ceased to be pro-creative. Rather, the couple have succumbed to some issue - perhaps a selfish devotion to material things - I cannot say. But their sex acts (by definition) remain procreative (so long as no ABC, and the man ejaculates in the woman).

I sense that you are correctly identifying a potential “wrong” (the misuse of NFP), but incorrectly “naming” the wrong.

 

[CatholicSooner]

After sleeping on it I’m just about done with this conversation as well because people are still somehow insisting that only having sex while infertile is procreative. It isn’t. Not at all.

I keep seeing this:

“NFP: no act occurs. We deny ourselves the act, rather than debase it.”

Maybe you need to research what NFP is:shrug: B/c NFP involves the very act you say doesn’t occurr. We deny ourselves the act for selfish reasons when a woman is fertile and then enjoy the act for selfish reasons when the woman is infertile.

 

[CatholicSooner]

I would be interested to see the age breakdown of the people in this conversation. Mainly to see whom are past menopause and don’t have to worry about getting pregnant anymore.

My wife and I are 29 with three kids. All pregnancies have been via C-section b/c of high blood pressure. All kids are two years apart. Having three kids under 30 is kind of scary when knowing we have 20+ years ahead of fertility. The last pregnancy was rougher and my wife is still on blood pressure meds three months after the surgery. She never had high blood pressure before.

I do not have a set number of kids that I want. I love having kids. I love being a father. I love trying to set a good example for them. I love my wife too and she is visibly shaken by the fear of complications if she would get pregnant again…especially before she gets her blood pressure under control.

We are honestly fine with using NFP because the church supports it. I just htink that the reasons against using ABC should also apply to NFP but I think they aren’t because people would leave the church.

You guys can judge us all you want but we will probably be mostly abstaining until she starts her cycles and then use NFP with condoms until her health is back and then strictly use NFP

 

[CatholicSooner]

“Sex does not cease to be ‘procreative’ when a couple chooses to space children by 2 or 3 years. It does not cease to be procreative where medical circumstances urge the avoidance of pregnancy for 10 years.”

So then why would sex cease to be procreative when a couple uses ABC to space out children?
If the couple is still open to children, then by the definition you posted, the marriage is still procreative even if children our born on the couples timeline

 

[mommamaree]

CatholicSooner,

May I join in late here and respond to some of your questions?

I think the problem might be the short-hand term “procreative”. The Church’s teachings actually speak of “ordered to procreation”. It goes on to define that term to mean: vaginal sexual intercourse, with the husband climaxing inside his wife. Furthermore, no action must be taken to purposefully sterilize either the act (before, during, or after) or to sterilize the person. Naturally sterile times (a spouse struggling with infertility, pregnancy, post-menopausal, or monthly cyclical infertility) are licit (meaning good and acceptable) times for intercourse, whether one intends to use NFP or not. So, the Church has no requirement that each individual act have the potential to create new life (otherwise, it would restrict intercourse to only fertile times and fertile spouses). What it does prohibit is human action to CAUSE sterility, or to circumvent the natural ends of intercourse by withdrawal or destruction of sperm or barriers such as condom or diaphragm.

Does that make more sense now? If not, let me know and I will try to explain it better.

God bless!

 

[Rau]

After sleeping on it I’m just about done with this conversation as well because people are still somehow insisting that only having sex while infertile is procreative. It isn’t. Not at all.

I keep seeing this:

“NFP: no act occurs. We deny ourselves the act, rather than debase it.”

Maybe you need to research what NFP is:shrug: B/c NFP involves the very act you say doesn’t occurr. We deny ourselves the act for selfish reasons when a woman is fertile and then enjoy the act for selfish reasons when the woman is infertile.

What causes you to assume selfish reasons are at play? NFP (to avoid) is never licit for selfish reasons. It is licit only when there are good reasons to avoid.

How do you reconcile your statement about what is/is not procreative with the FACT that the Church requires that every individual sex act be unitive and procreative? Is it therefore not clear that the term pertains to a single act? The term is simply not applicable as a measure of whether a “sufficient” proportion of sex was had during fertile times. If you don’t like that, you’ll need to debate it with Pope Paul VI. Neither you nor I can decide the meaning of the word. In the context of marital relations, Humanae Vitae has already provided the meaning.

NFP practiced for selfish reasons is wrong. But the sex acts may remain procreative- by definition of the word!

Can I suggest we move on from debating the meaning of a word that the Church defines and address the underlying issue that concerns you? [Or at least, if you are keen to debate this point further, please provide references from HV to support your position on the meaning of procreative.]

Fundamentally you seem to be arguing that the Church teaching on NFP is wrong? That avoiding pregnancy by restricting the occasions for sex to infertile times is wrong. Is it your view that avoiding children for a time may only be achieved by totally abstaining for the relevant period?

 

[Rau]

“Sex does not cease to be ‘procreative’ when a couple chooses to space children by 2 or 3 years. It does not cease to be procreative where medical circumstances urge the avoidance of pregnancy for 10 years.”

So then why would sex cease to be procreative when a couple uses ABC to space out children?
If the couple is still open to children, then by the definition you posted, the marriage is still procreative even if children our born on the couples timeline

Because ABC separates the aspects - the unitive and the procreative - of each sex act to which it is applied. That this is wrong is a Catholic teaching, set out in various writings, the references for which I provided to you in an earlier post. ** A sex act, subject to ABC, may be unitive but, by definition, it is not procreative.**

 

[CatholicSooner]

CatholicSooner,

May I join in late here and respond to some of your questions?

I think the problem might be the short-hand term “procreative”. The Church’s teachings actually speak of “ordered to procreation”. It goes on to define that term to mean: vaginal sexual intercourse, with the husband climaxing inside his wife. Furthermore, no action must be taken to purposefully sterilize either the act (before, during, or after) or to sterilize the person. Naturally sterile times (a spouse struggling with infertility, pregnancy, post-menopausal, or monthly cyclical infertility) are licit (meaning good and acceptable) times for intercourse, whether one intends to use NFP or not. So, the Church has no requirement that each individual act have the potential to create new life (otherwise, it would restrict intercourse to only fertile times and fertile spouses). What it does prohibit is human action to CAUSE sterility, or to circumvent the natural ends of intercourse by withdrawal or destruction of sperm or barriers such as condom or diaphragm.

Does that make more sense now? If not, let me know and I will try to explain it better.

God bless!

That does make more sense…but still if you break it down, ABC is not allowed because it is an artificial contraception. NFP is a natural contraceptive. I like to look at the end game. Why are each of these methods used? To avoid pregnancy. Why is one form worse than the other. I am interested in the reason not the response “b/c this is what the church says”. WHY does the church say that?

I personally believe that intent and circumstance should come into play. There is a difference between a married couple that already has children and may have medical issues using ABC and a single man hitting the clubs every weekend with ABC in their wallets. The married couple is still wanting to have children, but circumstances may cause them to want to delay it. The single person simply doesn’t want to have children at all.