How is NFP different in intent from other froms of contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter 111111
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

111111

Guest
Let me start by saying I am a 100% against premarital sex and all the jazz, this is just aimed at married couples seeking to plan when they’ll have kids.

I’m a practicing Catholic but am struggling to get a good understanding on this issue. I understand the stance on how contraception is bad because it “rejects” God and the possibility of bringing new life. But based solely on that, is not the sin just the intent? So when people have sex using NFP with the same intent, to not have a child, I can’t tell a difference. It seems like, if NFP is 99% effective or something like that and condoms also around 99% then if a married couple used a condom while practicing NFP it would be the same. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to defend this stuff, I just haven’t found sufficient information in my researching to come to a different conclusion. I would greatly appreciate any insight or links to help me answer the question. Thanks.
 
I have always had the same feeling as you… I think the difference is that all other types of contraception use “artificial” forms of preventing pregnancy. Although NFP does use a man-made device to determine whether a woman is ovulating and in a fertile state. I am just as confused as you!

Revert TSIEG
 
tjm190 said:
Quick correction- both are much less effective than 99%. I’ve actually never seen a statistically valid study on the success/failure rate of NFP.
Click to expand...
When my wife and I got are marriage validated, I received NFP material from our preist and the paperwork said 98% or higher effective, but I did not read the fine print. Sorry!

Revert TSIEG
 
Revert_TSIEG said:
When my wife and I got are marriage validated, I received NFP material from our preist and the paperwork said 98% or higher effective, but I did not read the fine print. Sorry!

Revert TSIEG
Click to expand...
The statistic I see is that 25 out of 100 NFP using couples will conceive within a year- had they all practiced 100% perfectly, there would have been 23 less conceptions.
 
NFP can be used to tell the most LIKELY time for conception so a couple DOES have a baby.

And according to Church teaching, a couple may abstain from sex any time they wish, including the woman’s fertile period.
 
all sexual relations must be both unitive and procreative. unitive means that the married couple comes together in a very loving and mutually giving manner and procreative obviously means that the act must be open to life. NFP protects both of these characteristics. artificial contraception obviously is not open to life. the reason NFP using couples remain open to life is simply because they have not done anything before, during or after the sexual act that would prevent conception. all they did was have sex while the woman was infertile, nothing wrong with that.

the intent to limit or space children is not objectively wrong. it depends on the circumstances and the Catholic Church acknowleges that responsible parenting may require that certain couples abstain, or use NFP from time to time.
 
The intent factor in NFP vs a condom (ABC) is that with NFP you are not putting a barrier in between you and your spouse to prevent a pregnancy. And both parties believe and understand that even if you correctly practice NFP to avoid a pregnancy and you end up getting pregnant that it is reason to be happy and to accept the baby as a gift. When couples use ABC they are in essence playing games with their fertility and are not keeping themselvs open to life.
Also, what many people don’t understand is the full spectrum that goes along with using NFP. When a couple uses NFP to avoid they should also be discussing each month with their partner why they are avoiding. Is the reason a true reason so on and so fourth.
 
111111 said:
Let me start by saying I am a 100% against premarital sex and all the jazz, this is just aimed at married couples seeking to plan when they’ll have kids.

I’m a practicing Catholic but am struggling to get a good understanding on this issue. I understand the stance on how contraception is bad because it “rejects” God and the possibility of bringing new life. But based solely on that, is not the sin just the intent? So when people have sex using NFP with the same intent, to not have a child, I can’t tell a difference. It seems like, if NFP is 99% effective or something like that and condoms also around 99% then if a married couple used a condom while practicing NFP it would be the same. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to defend this stuff, I just haven’t found sufficient information in my researching to come to a different conclusion. I would greatly appreciate any insight or links to help me answer the question. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Understanding the critical difference between NFP, on the one hand, and, say, The Pill, or condoms, or snipping the vesicles and such, on the other, is simple: Just answer the question, WHY DO FOLKS PREFER JUST ABOUT ANYTHING OVER NFP? WHAT IS THE #1 REASON?

Answer: Amount of sex.

As my dad used to say, “Those with the most kids get the least sex.”

NFP requires habitual abstaining (during the fertile times). The other measures don’t.

Net effect: Theft of pleasure from God

WHAT IS THE #2 REASON?

Mechanical certainty. Functionally, skilled use of ABC generates mechanical certainty of non-conception.

As a girl I knew years ago used to say, when we talked about marriage, “You use NFP. I’ll use The Pill.”

Accessing sexual pleasure whose fruitfulness has been killed is also a theft from God.

I believe that when Paul condemns “theft” in his sex sin lists, he is condemning birth-control-protected sex.
 
Let’s start with your basic premise that the intent is the same. It’s not. A contracepted sex act is an attempt to have sexual relations and simultaneously sterilize that act of intercourse. A sex act during the interfertile time of the cycle is a completed act of intercourse with no intent or action taken to sterilize the act.

But, what you meant, I am sure, is that the intent is to avoid conception (to space childbearing). The Church does not teach it is immoral to avoid conception for a period of time or indefinitely when one has a just reason to do so. The Church does not teach it immoral to space births. Therefore, the intent to space births is perfectly fine.

We must then examine the *means *of spacing births.

Contraception achieves the moral *end *of spacing births through the immoral *means *of engaging in sex acts while sterilizing the act by doing something disordered. The Church teaches that in order to be a moral act the way in which God designed it, each act of intercourse must be ordered *per se *to both procreation and unity of the spouses. This means it is a completed act of intercourse and it not sterilized by the couple.

Observing the natural cycle through a scientific method of natural family planning achieves the moral end of child spacing via a moral means-- abstaining from the sex act until/unless the couple can do it in the way God ordered it. The couple abstains completely, or they abstain during the fertile time of the cycle and engage in the act during ther naturally infertile time. The couple completes the act the way God designed it. They do nothing at all to sterilize it or disorder the act.

Analogy:

A man wants to provide money for his family. He can achieve this noble and moral intention through two means: working or robbing a bank. Working is a moral means of achieving his end, and robbing a bank is not.

There is a difference between means and ends. We cannot confuse or interchange these two things.

And, finally, the Church’s teaching is not based in any way on the “effectiveness” of any given method of contraception or natural family planning. Neither is it based on any concept of being “open to life” in a general way. Neither is it based on anything being “artificial.”

The Church’s teaching is based, instead, on the fact that God designed sexual acts between spouses to be ordered in a particular way. And, if we are using God’s gift of sexuality, we must use it only in this way. If we use it in any other way, we sin against the Sixth Commandment. Therefore we are not free to sterilize an act of sex when we want to avoid conception. But we are free to refrain from engaging in the act.
 
Hypothetical situation.

There are two married couples, both wanting to wait to have children. One couple is using NFP and the other a condom. So if NFP perfectly used is somewhere in the 90% range effective and condoms are also in the 90% range I don’t see how you can say one is sterilizing and the other is not. If one couple buys a condom that has the exact same percent chance of producing a baby as NFP statistically and both couples are “intending” not to have a child, then I don’t see the difference.
If there was a 100% effective condom then sure, one could say it’s sterilizing, but with the same percent chance of producing a child I don’t see how we can call one sterilizing and the other not when both couples are trying not to have a kid and both have the same chance of having a kid but are just using different means. I understand the argument people have that a condom isn’t fully allowing life to occur and may contradict God’s plan but to me it just seems like the same logic would apply to strictly following NFP in the attempt to not have a kid. It seems like if you’re against a condom you should be against only having sex during a time where the chances of having a kid are the same as would be if you used a condom.
 
111111 said:
Hypothetical situation.

There are two married couples, both wanting to wait to have children. One couple is using NFP and the other a condom. So if NFP perfectly used is somewhere in the 90% range effective and condoms are also in the 90% range I don’t see how you can say one is sterilizing and the other is not. If one couple buys a condom that has the exact same percent chance of producing a baby as NFP statistically and both couples are “intending” not to have a child, then I don’t see the difference.
If there was a 100% effective condom then sure, one could say it’s sterilizing, but with the same percent chance of producing a child I don’t see how we can call one sterilizing and the other not when both couples are trying not to have a kid and both have the same chance of having a kid but are just using different means. I understand the argument people have that a condom isn’t fully allowing life to occur and may contradict God’s plan but to me it just seems like the same logic would apply to strictly following NFP in the attempt to not have a kid. It seems like if you’re against a condom you should be against only having sex during a time where the chances of having a kid are the same as would be if you used a condom.
Click to expand...
The intent of NFP is to have non-fertile sex only when God permits, according to the woman’s cycle.

The intent of condom use is to have non-fertile sex regardless of God’s druthers, as expressed by the woman’s cycle.
 
111111 said:
Hypothetical situation.

There are two married couples, both wanting to wait to have children. One couple is using NFP and the other a condom. So if NFP perfectly used is somewhere in the 90% range effective and condoms are also in the 90% range I don’t see how you can say one is sterilizing and the other is not. If one couple buys a condom that has the exact same percent chance of producing a baby as NFP statistically and both couples are “intending” not to have a child, then I don’t see the difference.
Click to expand...
Get effectiveness out of your head. *It’s not relevant *and it has no basis in the teaching of the Church.

Look at the act itself. Either it is objectively ordered the way God made it or there has been an action taken to alter the act and make it sterile. Whether or not the couple is successful in making it sterile is not relevant. They took an action to disrupt the natural end of the act.

A couple using natural family planning does not take any action to make the act sterile. It is naturally infertile at that time. Just as it is naturally infertile for women past menopause or while a woman is pregnant. The couple takes no action to disorder their act of intercourse.

Did you ignore what I said about the ends and the means? I already stated that the intention of postponing/spacing is not immoral. The Church has not taught that it is.

There are two different means by which one may achieve the end of spacing. One is a moral means, and one is not. Just as working is a moral means of obtaining money and robbing someone is not.
111111 said:
If there was a 100% effective condom then sure, one could say it’s sterilizing, but with the same percent chance of producing a child I don’t see how we can call one sterilizing and the other not when both couples are trying not to have a kid and both have the same chance of having a kid but are just using different means.
Click to expand...
The means by which they are spacing/avoiding is THE relevant thing here. Do you understand the difference between means and ends? Do you understand that there can be moral and immoral means of achieving the same end?
111111 said:
I understand the argument people have that a condom isn’t fully allowing life to occur and may contradict God’s plan but to me it just seems like the same logic would apply to strictly following NFP in the attempt to not have a kid. It seems like if you’re against a condom you should be against only having sex during a time where the chances of having a kid are the same as would be if you used a condom.
Click to expand...
That would be true if spacing/avoiding *itself *were immoral. But it isn’t.
 
Peter_Dawson said:
The intent of NFP is to have non-fertile sex only when God permits, according to the woman’s cycle.

The intent of condom use is to have non-fertile sex regardless of God’s druthers, as expressed by the woman’s cycle.
Click to expand...
Thanks a ton, this makes complete sense finally.
 
You can’t judge intent that broadly- a couple using NFP could have a wide variety of intentions, as can a couple using contraceptives.
 
Luvs2Learn said:
The intent factor in NFP vs a condom (ABC) is that with NFP you are not putting a barrier in between you and your spouse to prevent a pregnancy.
Click to expand...
This is a poor argument, I think, (if you’re arguing that the physical contact is the crux of the matter, as some do) because it reduces it to whether or not there is direct contact between the couple’s genitals. The counterargument is, and I’ll admit that it’s a bit ridiculous is, let’s say that a man wears a condom only on the “top half”. Is it act only “half disordered” since there is “half contact”?

Correct me if I’ve misunderstood your argument, L2L, my bad if I did. Some people do reduce the Church’s teaching to direct vs. non-direct contact of the genitals.
Peter_Dawson said:
The intent of NFP is to have non-fertile sex only when God permits, according to the woman’s cycle.

The intent of condom use is to have non-fertile sex regardless of God’s druthers, as expressed by the woman’s cycle.
Click to expand...
Much better explanation, methinks
1ke said:
Get effectiveness out of your head. *It’s not relevant *and it has no basis in the teaching of the Church.

Look at the act itself.
Click to expand...
Exactomundo. Effectiveness is a moot point.

The “intent” in using a contraceptive of any sort is that a couple is acting against God’s will. Not engaging in relations during the fertile period is…well…not doing anything as far as the act is concerned and is not contraceptive. Some will argue that abstainance is contraceptive. It is not. Contraception is actively doing an act against conception. That’s the difference in intent.
 
Quick correction to the correction:

humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/5/1310

Unintended Pregnancy rate of 0.6 per 100 women per 13 cycles. As far as I know this is a secular researcher, but I am open to correction on that. Either way it is a published study. CCL has many similar studies IIRC. You were not misled TSIEG. Fertility awareness is effective.

Agreed, however, that effectiveness is not the point, as recently posted.
 
11111:

The intent is the same…to avoid pregnancy while still being able to engage in the marital embrace. The difference is in how that intent is achieved.

1ke’s post is very good, but I disagree with claiming that the intent is different.
 
NFP CAN be used in a way that is inappropriate. Using either NFP or ABC to limit family size, when the couple shouldn’t be seeking to limit, is wrong in both cases. That is where intent comes in, and in a way I think it doesn’t have much to do with the NFP/ABC debate - it is a different question.

Now, many will argue, and I won’t disagree, that easy ABC that really requires no sacrifices makes it more attractive for a couple to avoid pregnancy. If avoiding means that sometimes you will have to abstain, you may think harder about whether you really need to avoid a pregnancy. And even more so if avoiding means total abstinence.

But the reasons NFP is considered ok and ABC isn’t aren’t really about intent at all. I think it confuses a lot of people though, because they get the two issues mixed up.
 
111111 said:
Hypothetical situation.

There are two married couples, both wanting to wait to have children. One couple is using NFP and the other a condom. So if NFP perfectly used is somewhere in the 90% range effective and condoms are also in the 90% range I don’t see how you can say one is sterilizing and the other is not. If one couple buys a condom that has the exact same percent chance of producing a baby as NFP statistically and both couples are “intending” not to have a child, then I don’t see the difference.
If there was a 100% effective condom then sure, one could say it’s sterilizing, but with the same percent chance of producing a child I don’t see how we can call one sterilizing and the other not when both couples are trying not to have a kid and both have the same chance of having a kid but are just using different means. I understand the argument people have that a condom isn’t fully allowing life to occur and may contradict God’s plan but to me it just seems like the same logic would apply to strictly following NFP in the attempt to not have a kid. It seems like if you’re against a condom you should be against only having sex during a time where the chances of having a kid are the same as would be if you used a condom.
Click to expand...
as one poster already noted, the means used to achieve the result is where the difference lies. the intent may be the same, the goal may be the same as well. the Catholic Church subscribes to the moral principle of - “the end doesnt justify the means”.

in order to see this clearly you have to understand that part first and then take the “end goal” out of it. a couple using ABC disrupts/manipulates the life giving aspect of the sexual act while the NFP couple works within the womans natural fertility cycle. that is the difference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top