J
jonk
Guest
NFP
Is it or isn’t it?
Or does it depend purely on the subjective reasons for using it?
Is it or isn’t it?
Or does it depend purely on the subjective reasons for using it?
- Status
M
martinporres
Guest
The Church teaches that if there are grave reasons (which can include economic reasons), that married people are allow to postpone pregnancy via NFP.
But you should check your terminology. “Contraception” implies there is something being done to thwart the natural act of conception. NFP isn’t contraception in that it teaches couples how to distinguish when the woman is fertile and when she isn’t. Completion of the marital act during infertile periods is not unnatural.
Using NFP to indefinitely postpone pregnancy for selfish reasons is immoral and against natural law, but it isn’t technically contraception.
But you should check your terminology. “Contraception” implies there is something being done to thwart the natural act of conception. NFP isn’t contraception in that it teaches couples how to distinguish when the woman is fertile and when she isn’t. Completion of the marital act during infertile periods is not unnatural.
Using NFP to indefinitely postpone pregnancy for selfish reasons is immoral and against natural law, but it isn’t technically contraception.
J
jburgherr
Guest
J
jonk
Guest
mart(name removed by moderator)orres, I cannot but concur, because I am Catholic after all, and the difference to me is as bright as day, but let’s throw in an objection or two. Protestants, Catholics who disagree - throw in your objections too.
Okay, so, you have a couple that uses NFP to avoid conceiving for grave reasons, and you have another couple that for similar grave reasons uses barrier contraception to the same effect. So what is the difference?
You have a woman with an unpredictable cycle for whom becoming pregnant would pose a great risk to health and pregnancy must be avoided at all costs until the risk subsides. So why can’t the couple use oral and barrier contraceptives? Would the sympto-thermal method be sufficient or must they abstain?
jburgherr:
Okay, so, you have a couple that uses NFP to avoid conceiving for grave reasons, and you have another couple that for similar grave reasons uses barrier contraception to the same effect. So what is the difference?
You have a woman with an unpredictable cycle for whom becoming pregnant would pose a great risk to health and pregnancy must be avoided at all costs until the risk subsides. So why can’t the couple use oral and barrier contraceptives? Would the sympto-thermal method be sufficient or must they abstain?
A bad joke.
J
jburgherr
Guest
Jonk,
The example you give as reason for contraception is a straw man. If pregnancy is to be avoided at all cost, then one should abstain from sex…completely. No artificial contraception is completely reliable. ONLY Abstinence is 100% effective in the prevention of pregnancy.
NFP provides for this scenario. The husband and wife does not engage in the marital embrace until it is healthy for the wife to do so.
The difference between the couples is that for the husband and wife using NFP, no human life is in jeopardy. The couple using artificial contraception is likely to abort and kill a baby during the chemically induced menses.
The example you give as reason for contraception is a straw man. If pregnancy is to be avoided at all cost, then one should abstain from sex…completely. No artificial contraception is completely reliable. ONLY Abstinence is 100% effective in the prevention of pregnancy.
NFP provides for this scenario. The husband and wife does not engage in the marital embrace until it is healthy for the wife to do so.
The difference between the couples is that for the husband and wife using NFP, no human life is in jeopardy. The couple using artificial contraception is likely to abort and kill a baby during the chemically induced menses.
J
jonk
Guest
Good point, though I tried to make the distinction between sympto-thermal with irregular cycle and two methods of contraception used at the same time.
But if they use barrier methods only, there is no risk of abortion. So is the difference limited to naturalness only?
Here’s another objection I’ve heard… Why would something be wrong just because it’s unnatural? [Cars, planes, nylon shirts, you name it] are unnatural, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
M
martinporres
Guest
In parts:
- Oral contraceptives are partially abortifacient (cause abortion) in nature; thus they are forbidden. This is the easy one. I find that many people don’t know ‘the pill’ is abortifacient.
- Barrier methods are forbidden because the God’s gift of the marital act is not allowed to take place; it is a selfish affront to natural law. That is to say, it is negating the ‘yes’ and love of marriage. (Granted, this one is harder for me personally to explain, but it makes sense when I think of fertility, conception, and the marital act as a gift from God that shouldn’t be thwarted.)
- STM NFP teaches the safest phase of infertility is post ovulation, pre-menses. If you learn STM properly, the rule is very simple for determining when this phase begins. This would only require the couple from abstaining from sex anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 of the woman’s cycle. And irregular cycles don’t cause difficulty in determining this either.
J
jburgherr
Guest
When you remove God from the “Procreative Act” this then becomes sinful. This is what happen with any form of artificial contraception. The decision to create and end life is in the domain of God alone.
J
jonk
Guest
It just sounds so obvious.
I like the analogy that contraception is like eating a cake and then sticking two fingers down your throat to upchuck it back out.
Seriously, am I missing something? How could the Church just be so right? Well, perhaps because it was founded by Christ.
Brace yourself for a shock. The BBC
says that natural contraception is 'effective’
Yes, maybe the terminology is wrong, but come on, the BBC!
I like the analogy that contraception is like eating a cake and then sticking two fingers down your throat to upchuck it back out.
Seriously, am I missing something? How could the Church just be so right? Well, perhaps because it was founded by Christ.
Brace yourself for a shock. The BBC
says that natural contraception is 'effective’Yes, maybe the terminology is wrong, but come on, the BBC!
- Status