Hypocritical Contraception?

[hasikelee]

Ok then new question. What do couples do if they don’t plan on having children for awhile? Assuming that NFP is a sin I assume they must abstain.

Well, the idea of NFP being sinful doesn’t make sense to me. I mean, aren’t we all practicing NFP right now? At least, I hope no one is doing anything other than typing while on this thread.

If being aware of your fertility and not getting pregnant due to fertility cycles is sinful, then that begs a requirement for everyone to always be engaged in sexual activity. Or am I overthinking this?

What about people who “practice” nothing? Can they really claim not to be practicing anything, if they engage in sexual intercourse during a non-fertile period, or is that sinful?

 

[holdencaulfield]

Well, the idea of NFP being sinful doesn’t make sense to me. I mean, aren’t we all practicing NFP right now? At least, I hope no one is doing anything other than typing while on this thread.

If being aware of your fertility and not getting pregnant due to fertility cycles is sinful, then that begs a requirement for everyone to always be engaged in sexual activity. Or am I overthinking this?

What about people who “practice” nothing? Can they really claim not to be practicing anything, if they engage in sexual intercourse during a non-fertile period, or is that sinful?

You have a point however I wanted to see what the anti NFP people said.

 

[rlg94086]

Well, the idea of NFP being sinful doesn’t make sense to me. I mean, aren’t we all practicing NFP right now? At least, I hope no one is doing anything other than typing while on this thread.

Something tells me my wife wouldn’t appreciate that…she already teases me about the time I spend on this forum.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Something tells me my wife wouldn’t appreciate that…she already teases me about the time I spend on this forum.

I do have to admit this forum is a waste of time, but hey it’s something to do.

 

[hasikelee]

You have a point however I wanted to see what the anti NFP people said.

Okay, I’ll play devil’s advocate:

Suck it up.

:bowdown:

Honestly, though, it is a good bet that those who are against NFP feel comfortable with the idea of any amount of children at any time.

My personal experience in real life has shown every single person who said NFP is “iffy” at best, and downright mortal sin at worst, already had a brood of kids. Perhaps they feel defensive, or picked on, as if their position is being called “wrong.”

For example, my DH’s grandmother had 15 single children. She will outright tell you that NFP is a lie and a mortal sin and nothing but young’uns wanting to be lustful. She is very passionate about the subject. But, then you have to understand that she has a lot to be defensive about. Although, God bless her, she provided life for 15 kids, it was not without the price of absolute poverty, unsafe conditions and weird family relationships. (And no, I’m not saying it was directly due to 15 kids. I love big families.)

 

[KathleenBP]

OK, this is getting weird…
What does the practices of Plantation owners and their attitudes toward their slaves have to do with early 20th century Eugenics? As in all aspects of life, there are always good and bad. There were “good” slave owners and bad ones. Some treated their slaves with more respect and kindness than others…but I really do not see where that fits in with Margaret Sangor and her Eugenic ideas. Slavery is a terrible thing. Don’t get me wrong, but the fact remains that Margaret Sangor was a eugenisist (spelling) and you can read it in her writings! Gee guys, is anyone just going to admit that contraception has truly been a disaster for the family and for women’s dignity? Look at the divorce rate since the turn of the 20th century…look at the problems that come with this free for all society? Porn, drugs, fatherless children…it can’t be denied. FNP is not a sin…if done with God right in the middle of things. Put God first and you can not go wrong. All this other stuff is just fluff…and has nothing to do with the fact that contraception has not done what the Family Planning and Drug Companies have touted for the last 100 years.
In Christ’s Peace,
Kathleen

 

[homeloan]

… Gee guys, is anyone just going to admit that contraception has truly been a disaster for the family and for women’s dignity?..

Me, I will! (it hasn’t been a disaster for the family and for women’s dignity). Women were barefoot and pregnant before the pill. The only job they could have in business was “Secretary”. How pathetic! Once liberated, they quickly showed men that they could do as well as we, not only in the business world, but in most other life challenges too. I think the pill (ABC) liberated 1/2 of the worlds population, esp here in the US, and our nation and the world has benefitte to high-heaven since women found that they didn’t have to stay at home, barefoot and pregnant. Personally, I don’t think the Church has a problem with the liberation of females at all. But, I think lots of men do, RC men not excepted…

 

[Calliso]

I said Scripture *and *morality. Protestants, especially “non-denominational” Christians can pretty much accept any interpretation or “Bible-based” belief as they like…there is no authority to turn to. That is the reason that many, many Christians abused the biblical passages regarding slavery. The Catholic Church’s history with slavery is a little more complicated. Read about it here, if it interests you: catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

However, slavery is not what we are discussing here, so I don’t want to get into a lot of back-and-forth on an unrelated topic.

Now, can you or can’t you explain what happened in the understanding of the majority of non-Catholic Christians in the early 1900s with respect to contraception? I think it is easier to understand how something that is allowed and/or tolerated in Scripture (with certain caveats) is later more strictly defined as sinful, in the case of slavery. I think it is much more difficult to go from something defined as seriously sinful to suddenly being embraced by most Christians. It is also interesting that a number of “non-denominational” churches are starting to rediscover the sin of contraception.

Soo now I have loose morals? or am I misunderstanding you?
As for what happened I have no idea…, but then again I stil can;t answer or have seen a good answer of why it was considered sinful in the first place. And I have heard alot of explanations of it. maybe I am just slow lol…

 

[hasikelee]

Me, I will! (it hasn’t been a disaster for the family and for women’s dignity). Women were barefoot and pregnant before the pill. The only job they could have in business was “Secretary”. How pathetic! Once liberated, they quickly showed men that they could do as well as we, not only in the business world, but in most other life challenges too. I think the pill (ABC) liberated 1/2 of the worlds population, esp here in the US, and our nation and the world has benefitte to high-heaven since women found that they didn’t have to stay at home, barefoot and pregnant. Personally, I don’t think the Church has a problem with the liberation of females at all. But, I think lots of men do, RC men not excepted…

Wait, your thesis here is that hormonal replacement therapies liberated women in America?

 

[holdencaulfield]

Me, I will! (it hasn’t been a disaster for the family and for women’s dignity). Women were barefoot and pregnant before the pill. The only job they could have in business was “Secretary”. How pathetic! Once liberated, they quickly showed men that they could do as well as we, not only in the business world, but in most other life challenges too. I think the pill (ABC) liberated 1/2 of the worlds population, esp here in the US, and our nation and the world has benefitte to high-heaven since women found that they didn’t have to stay at home, barefoot and pregnant. Personally, I don’t think the Church has a problem with the liberation of females at all. But, I think lots of men do, RC men not excepted…

What you said is in fact historically incorrect. The pill has not done anything for women’s dignity unless you consider lowering it. You need to do some historical research. The early feminists did not want the pill because they didn’t want men to be able to have sex in order to just use them. They saw the pill as a way for men to turn women into merely sex slaves. Furthermore the pill can cause abortions.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Wait, your thesis here is that hormonal replacement therapies liberated women in America?

It’s the typical liberal atheist stance.

 

[rlg94086]

Soo now I have loose morals? or am I misunderstanding you?
As for what happened I have no idea…, but then again I stil can;t answer or have seen a good answer of why it was considered sinful in the first place. And I have heard alot of explanations of it. maybe I am just slow lol…

Sorry…yes, you are misunderstanding me. What I am saying is that when it comes to determining what is moral vs. what is not (i.e. slavery, birth control), non-Catholics either look to their own interpretation of Scripture and/or personal reasoning without recourse to the Magisterium.

 

[hasikelee]

It’s the typical liberal atheist stance.

Now, in all honesty, we don’t know that the particular poster is liberal or atheist. I’ve met many non-denom Christians who hold these ideas, and even some Catholics. If anything, it is just a sign of being taught inaccurate history.

Nonetheless, I find those types of theories highly offensive and discriminatory to women. To tell a woman to take a permanent hormonal replacement therapy, to terminate her body’s natural functions, to risk killing her offspring, so that she can be “equal” to men in the workplace is akin to telling an African slave to bleach his skin to be “equal” to the white man.

 

[Calliso]

Sorry…yes, you are misunderstanding me. What I am saying is that when it comes to determining what is moral vs. what is not (i.e. slavery, birth control), non-Catholics either look to their own interpretation of Scripture and/or personal reasoning without recourse to the Magisterium.

Ahh I see

 

[holdencaulfield]

Nonetheless, I find those types of theories highly offensive and discriminatory to women. To tell a woman to take a permanent hormonal replacement therapy, to terminate her body’s natural functions, to risk killing her offspring, so that she can be “equal” to men in the workplace is akin to telling an African slave to bleach his skin to be “equal” to the white man.

Yes, that was my point.

 

[Calliso]

Now, in all honesty, we don’t know that the particular poster is liberal or atheist. I’ve met many non-denom Christians who hold these ideas, and even some Catholics. If anything, it is just a sign of being taught inaccurate history.

Nonetheless, I find those types of theories highly offensive and discriminatory to women. To tell a woman to take a permanent hormonal replacement therapy, to terminate her body’s natural functions, to risk killing her offspring, so that she can be “equal” to men in the workplace is akin to telling an African slave to bleach his skin to be “equal” to the white man.

You do make a good point I donlt think that women should be expected to do such things in order to be equal. Though admittingly I think you could argue that having more control over her fertility does help a woman in things like gettign equal jobs and what not. But alot of that had a lot more to do with changing attitudes towards women then anything.

 

[Swan]

What you said is in fact historically incorrect. The pill has not done anything for women’s dignity unless you consider lowering it. You need to do some historical research. The early feminists did not want the pill because they didn’t want men to be able to have sex in order to just use them. They saw the pill as a way for men to turn women into merely sex slaves. Furthermore the pill can cause abortions.

I can, of course, only speak for myself, but I consider ABC to be very liberating. And I have never been a sex slave. It’s not the man who chooses, it’s me. Before the pill women were pretty much forced into pregnancy because they had no alternative. Any sex was a gamble and married women who couldn’t get a decent job because “women’s” work was so limited had to depend on their husband so couldn’t really say no to sex - they were in more of a sex slave position than I’ve ever been. There were a lot of women who stayed in terrible marriages because they had kids and had no marketable skills. Not every woman was June Cleaver, not every man was Ward. I’m almost 50 now and am very happy that I never had kids (my reasons are personal). Clearly, I do not believe ABC is a sin but I’m no longer Catholic and I don’t mean to imply otherwise. One of the reasons I’m not is this very issue. If you are Catholic I am not suggesting by any means that you ignore the church teaching on this subject - just want to be clear on that.

 

[hasikelee]

You do make a good point I donlt think that women should be expected to do such things in order to be equal. Though admittingly I think you could argue that having more control over her fertility does help a woman in things like gettign equal jobs and what not. But alot of that had a lot more to do with changing attitudes towards women then anything.

Control doesn’t equal cessation. Obviously slaves wanted control over their freedom, but that doesn’t mean they bleached their skin, changed their names and pretended to be white. So why does it mean women have to damage their reproductive organs and kill their offspring to reach equality? And is that true equality? How come I as a woman have to take a pill everyday to get the same job as a man?

And how does this theory fit in with Sanger’s campaign to sterilize the poor, minority and mentally ill? Does that mean women in general are in this category, unfit to breed and deserving of being controlled as if cattle or household pets?

This is a very interesting discussion, thanks for starting it. :tiphat: I’m not leveling all these questions at you to get a defense, as much as I am wondering out loud. Have you wondered about these things?

 

[homeloan]

What you said is in fact historically incorrect. The pill has not done anything for women’s dignity unless you consider lowering it. You need to do some historical research. The early feminists did not want the pill because they didn’t want men to be able to have sex in order to just use them. They saw the pill as a way for men to turn women into merely sex slaves. Furthermore the pill can cause abortions.

How pathetic… unbelieveable… pitiful… sad… you guys…!

What are you going to do when you wake up in eternity, go to meet your maker and SHE says, “… ahem, you were saying,…?” HA HA!

 

[newbetx]

Me, I will! (it hasn’t been a disaster for the family and for women’s dignity). Women were barefoot and pregnant before the pill. The only job they could have in business was “Secretary”. How pathetic! Once liberated, they quickly showed men that they could do as well as we, not only in the business world, but in most other life challenges too. I think the pill (ABC) liberated 1/2 of the worlds population, esp here in the US, and our nation and the world has benefitte to high-heaven since women found that they didn’t have to stay at home, barefoot and pregnant. Personally, I don’t think the Church has a problem with the liberation of females at all. But, I think lots of men do, RC men not excepted…

It’s a two edged sword…

While it changed how women were looked at, it changed how women were looked at.

While on one side, ABC limited the excuse of keeping women out of certain jobs was lifted because men could not say, “well, we’ll hire her and she’ll get married and then pregnant and then she’ll stay home and we will have wasted our money training her.” This problem was one of bias. The assumption was, if you were a woman with a degree, you were on ABC and had no interest in having children. How’s that for a new look? Laws changed to promote this change in attitude. However, the flip side gives us “recreational sex” and then all the problems it creates.

And remember how every discussion in the hallway somehow had something to do with sex or a dirty joke or a boaster talking about his or her conquests or affairs? Because it no longer was the male attitude that was the negative thing, it was pregnancy. Selfishness had a new target. Babies. And it wasn’t just for men anymore. Now women were liberated to act just like males. (Why was that a good thing again?) Oh, yeah, so that women could “Bring home the bacon and fry it up in pan”. Yeah, I forgot. So now, women can have ulcers, headaches, fight traffic, demeaning bosses and everything men put up with and more.

Now if ABC was so good for society, why do we have a higher divorce rate, more unwanted pregnancies, more women with children out of wedlock, more people on welfare, and a need for more abortion clinics than before we had the pill? And to prevent these problems, schools hand out condoms? We have more STDs, deaths, and ruined lives. AND kids are not only expecting their dates to put out, they can spend their time on line looking to hook up with other online one-nighters.

However we have made substantial progress in human rights. All rights. We have to remember that women won the right to vote and own property without the pill or “sleeping their way to the top” as the saying goes. What makes us think they couldn’t have gotten college degrees and good jobs without it, too?

I’ve become a believer in the statement that the advantage the US had in the world economy is due to WW II. We had to sacrafice so much but developed so much good technology that there was no way we could fail even when we messed up. It wasn’t the pill that showed us women could work. The war did that.

Be carefull giving the pill too much credit. While I would have a hard time disagreeing that it helped, I think it’s like that old Star Trek movie… Where the “Genesis project” created something wonderful but because the scientist used an unstable substance to make it work faster, the whole thing became unstable and collapsed. Where are we today?