Since I have to leave and don’t have time, I’ll just post an excerpt from a previous post in this thread. It matters that the person who asked the question is Catholic (and likely not living in a country with poor health care or Norway either for that matter.).Dear SwizzleStick:
How is it valid?
Let’s look at the thread question: “Is Birth Control Valid in certain circumstances?”
It’s valid because “certain circumstances”, like making life safer for women who live in countries with poor health care, warrant birth control/contraception. Countries where contraception is easily available have healthier women.
The OP is Catholic. Therefore, the OP is bound by the teachings of the Catholic Church. According to the Catholic Church (and every other Christian Church too up until the 1930s or so), using contraception is intrinsically evil,…
The point is that your ideas about contraception belong in a place like Afghanistan. Modern, wealthy, decent coutries realize that it makes life better.Norway is a first-world country. Afghanistan is a third-world country. You can’t compare the two and say, “Contraception is the ONLY REASON that Afghanistan has such an abysmal maternal mortality rate.”
The reason the women and children of Afghanistan suffer is due to the greed and incompetence of its ruling class, not because of alleged lack of contraception.
Did you know that in many African countries, medical supply facilities have no penicillin or sterile bandages, but their cupboards are overflowing with condoms, so much so that children use them as toys? THAT is what is sad.
Actually, that’s not accurate as NFP can also be used to *achieve *pregnancy by timing intercourse to coincide with a woman’s fertile period. NFP only provides information; what is done with that information is left up to the couple and their discernment.
I’ve read a lot of classifications regarding fertility control, so I guess yours can be accepted as well as all other.The rhythm method does NOT work by observation of fertility signs. It uses a calendar, and it assumes that every woman has a textbook 28-day cycle and ovulates on day 14 (which most women, including myself, do not). Women are instructed to mark the first day of their period as day 1, and then avoid from days 8-17 or so (if they wish to avoid pregnancy). This method of counting days does not work for most women, as even women who regularly have 28-day cycles will occasionally have delayed ovulation due to stress, travel, or myriad other reasons.
Yes, because modern, wealthy, decent countries have a 0% maternal mortality rate, a 0% divorce rate, and no abortion because “every child is a wanted child.”The point is that your ideas about contraception belong in a place like Afghanistan. Modern, wealthy, decent coutries realize that it makes life better.
My “classification” isn’t mine, it’s the classification used by anyone knowledgeable about NFP.I’ve read a lot of classifications regarding fertility control, so I guess yours can be accepted as well as all other.
Of course modern countries have other problems, like divorce and abortion (different subjects, by the way), and no, their maternal mortality rate is not zero, but it’s a lot better than countries that make contraception illegal.Yes, because modern, wealthy, decent countries have a 0% maternal mortality rate, a 0% divorce rate, and no abortion because “every child is a wanted child.”
Oh wait…
Once again, see the differences vis a vis first-world countries and third-world countries.Of course modern countries have other problems, like divorce and abortion (different subjects, by the way), and no, their maternal mortality rate is not zero, but it’s a lot better than countries that make contraception illegal.
These signs in woman’s body usually appear according to her fertile period. This is why couple usually won’t engage in “celebration” if calendar and mucus don’t match. They will postpone the relations until both of them show infertility.The old calendar “rhythm method” is not the same as Natural Family Planning. The rhythm method was based on calendar calculations of a “normal” cycle. In contrast, NFP is based on direct observations of various signs that occur in an individual woman’s body (changes in the cervix, cervical mucus, and temperature) which tell her when she is fertile. Thus, she and her husband can decide together whether or not to indulge in “celebrating their sacrament,” depending on if they are trying to conceive or if they are trying to avoid.
Yes. That’s my point. You seem to be drawn to the same kind of ideas, and the same kind of personal restrictions, that flourish in third-world countries. Why? No, I’m not saying one causes the other, I’m saying they travel together. Thinking contraception should be illegal goes with theocracy and backwardness.Once again, see the differences vis a vis first-world countries and third-world countries.
Not really. Most claim NFP is form of contraception.My “classification” isn’t mine, it’s the classification used by anyone knowledgeable about NFP.
NO.If someone has a rare genetic heart problem that has a 50% chance to be passed on, would it be acceptable to take birth control? This genetic trait is dominant and potentially life threatening.
It’s more proper to say that it is a form of birth control.Not really. Most claim NFP is form of contraception.
You seem to be drawn to the same kind of bigotry that allowed the eugenics movement to flourish.Yes. That’s my point. You seem to be drawn to the same kind of ideas, and the same kind of personal restrictions, that flourish in third-world countries. Why? No, I’m not saying one causes the other, I’m saying they travel together. Thinking contraception should be illegal goes with theocracy and backwardness.
Really? If that’s the case, why isn’t NFP lauded and encouraged by Protestants and secular society?Not really. Most claim NFP is form of contraception.
As I mentioned, there are many classifications. Catholic sources always mention NFP as “birth control”, while other perceptions usually claim it is a form of contraception.It’s more proper to say that it is a form of birth control.
Eugenics has nothing to do with modern reproductive rights. And throwing around such a word without cause suggests you don’t have the facts or ability to discuss the subject using reason. Are you going to write back and call me a Nazi?You seem to be drawn to the same kind of bigotry that allowed the eugenics movement to flourish.
Actually, contraception has a great deal to do with eugenics. The Nazis weren’t the only group in favor of eugenics. Have you ever heard of Margaret Sanger?Eugenics has nothing to do with modern reproductive rights. And throwing around such a word without cause suggests you don’t have the facts or ability to discuss the subject using reason. Are you going to write back and call me a Nazi?
Because they are not very effective means of controling fertility. And they often lower the stability of marriage.Really? If that’s the case, why isn’t NFP lauded and encouraged by Protestants and secular society?
Read this for an explanation as to why NFP is NOT contraception:
These arguments have their logic, but give more questions then answers. If “preventing conception” counts as morally acceptable end, then one could rightfully ask how NFP is open to life.
Indeed. The veracity is determined by fact.By the way, truth is not determined by majority vote. Even if “most people” think something, that does not determine its veracity.