Is contraception the answer to reducing abortions?

[RWMorris]

You should start a thread on that! I have never heard the monitoring of a woman’s reproductive cycle called a “barrier.”

Have you mentioned your theory to any scientists? I wonder what they would think about it.

I hope that I didn’t offend you. The reason I put the word barrier in parenthesis is because NFP is not a physical barrier, only in the sense of timing is it a barrier. There was a thread about this a year or so ago and I brought up this same point. It was explained to me and I still didn’t get it. One of the points was that with NFP one is always open to new life. I countered with the fact that using physical barriers was less effective than NFP at preventing pregnancy and one could still be open to new life in the event of failure, just as with NFP. But that didn’t fly either. But I continue reading on the subject from Catholic authors, and I pray. I’m pretty dense and I’ve only been a Catholic for 2 years this Easter. So keep praying for me, and I’ll keep trying to understand.

 

[1234]

The reality is that when you start using contraception, you increase the amount of sex you have. If only to justify the expense, but also because you feel invincible.

er…the very high rates of illegitimacy of old in Catholic countries indicated that there was* quite a lot* of fornicating without contraception.

 

[hasikelee]

It’s sound, alright, and backed by reliable statistics the world over.

The combination of sex education and widely available contraception has decreased the rate of abortion in Scandinavia to the lowest in the world. Countries with abortion and no contraception, as previously stated, have (had) the highest rates in the world; contraception was abortion. Recently in South America, notably Brazil, the largest country, there is a huge new emphasis on contraception to try to decrease the very high rates of abortion.

Are you drawing from this study:

Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 27, Number 2, March/April 1995
"Using Induced Abortion to Measure Contraceptive Efficacy"

 

[stringbeanduck]

DO - NOT - HAVE - SEX - OUTSIDE - OF - MARRIAGE. There, we’ve been educated. How much more aggressive do we have to be?

There have been about 40 million abortions in abortion clinics in the US since Roe V Wade. There have been hundreds of millions of abortions since the pill and IUDs have become legal. Abortive contraception is still abortion, you just don’t have to go to an abortion clinic. It is still murder, and one that most of us have been guilty of. It is a shameful legacy that most of us have contributed to.

I could not agree more. Its simple do not do anything outside of marriage. Contraception’s devalue the meaning of sex and our nature. It says, “go ahead and do it; it’s no big deal, have fun.” I can’t stand why all these kids care about the feeling and not about what it is truly for. They don’t care they about the risks. People need to stop educating teens about “safe sex” and start educating them with sex is 100% wrong outside of marriage, DO NOT DO IT. Or better yet don’t even think about touching her. Also I’m talking about here in the USA. I can’t speak for these countries like China.

 

[hasikelee]

I hope that I didn’t offend you. The reason I put the word barrier in parenthesis is because NFP is not a physical barrier, only in the sense of timing is it a barrier. There was a thread about this a year or so ago and I brought up this same point. It was explained to me and I still didn’t get it. One of the points was that with NFP one is always open to new life. I countered with the fact that using physical barriers was less effective than NFP at preventing pregnancy and one could still be open to new life in the event of failure, just as with NFP. But that didn’t fly either. But I continue reading on the subject from Catholic authors, and I pray. I’m pretty dense and I’ve only been a Catholic for 2 years this Easter. So keep praying for me, and I’ll keep trying to understand.

Do you have a biology and/or chemistry background? Have you sought secular/medical information on NFP?

How do you fit NFP as a barrier when it is the only one on your list that can achieve pregnancy?

I guess I’m fascinated because I’ve never heard of monitoring your body as being a barrier. So, I am asking out of pure curiosity.

 

[1234]

I find it remarkable that, on this forum and on another well-known Catholic forum which shall not be named, that, in posts on this incendiary topic:

—there are relatively few posters, and several appear to be talking back and forth to each other, all, or most agreeing, and therefore, preaching to the choir;

—all or most are men. On the* other forum*, the posters who opposed contraception and abortion, appeared mostly to be men; most were single, and many appeared to post a great deal online, maintain webpages (giving clues to their identity), blogs, etc. Did they have a life? Unclear.

—on* that forum*, the tone grew extraordinarily vicious. Some advocated that women who had abortions should be subject to capital punishment (more orphans at home–many women who have abortions have other children).

News bulletin, guys:

Women are the ones who get pregnant, carry and bear children, raise them, and have abortions. In this country and, I suspect, throughout the world, the vast, vast majority of women support availability of contraception, and at least some access to abortion, particularly early abortion, “morning after” and emergency contraception, and in case of rape or incest.

Period.

 

[mark_a]

How many unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions could have been avoided by more aggressive policies on sex education and encouraging contraception? It’s tricky issue and I am concerned that we should continue to discuss this.

If you want to discuss it further there is a discussion group at cicerotv.com/question/83

It makes me wonder if the AIDS numbers will increase.

 

[mark_a]

Women are the ones who get pregnant, carry and bear children, raise them, and have abortions. In this country and, I suspect, throughout the world, the vast, vast majority of women support availability of contraception, and at least some access to abortion, particularly early abortion, “morning after” and emergency contraception, and in case of rape or incest.

Period.

Doesn’t make it right, though.

 

[RWMorris]

Do you have a biology and/or chemistry background? Have you sought secular/medical information on NFP?

No, but I have a minor in general science. I understand the general concepts behind NFP.

How do you fit NFP as a barrier when it is the only one on your list that can achieve pregnancy?

It is not the only one that can achieve pregnancy. The failure of a condom, a diaphragm, or NFP can result in pregnancy.

I guess I’m fascinated because I’ve never heard of monitoring your body as being a barrier. So, I am asking out of pure curiosity.

One of the definitions of the word barrier is:

something immaterial that impedes or separates

• merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barrier

That was the context in which I was using the term. NFP is only a barrier in the sense of timing.

 

[guanophore]

Something that is seldome mentioned!

Non-barrier methods of contraception commonly are chemical abortifacients…

Conception is not contravened - gestation is.

One may argue that some “contraception” actually only increases abortion. It just does so chemically.

This is a very good way of putting it. If you don’t mind, I will add it to my collection!

 

[Scottgun]

News bulletin, guys:

Women are the ones who get pregnant, carry and bear children, raise them, and have abortions. In this country and, I suspect, throughout the world, the vast, vast majority of women support availability of contraception, and at least some access to abortion, particularly early abortion, “morning after” and emergency contraception, and in case of rape or incest.

Period.

I’ll ignore the stuff about the blogs and having a life because that is just cheap ad hominem. Abortion of course is objectively wrong. Even a good number of atheists recognize this. By this women-have-the-babies logic, only murderers could sit on a jury for capital cases. Reason and moral law don’t work like that.

And I don’t advocate the death penalty for women getting abortions. They would likely get no jail time. Pressuring family, boyfriends, etc. (almost forgot those people eh?) would get a stiffer sentence. And the doctor performing it would get the harshest sentence of all much like paid assassins get hammered much harder than heat-of-passion killers.

 

[guanophore]

All contraception being sinful is strictly an opinion (IMO). Granted, the Church agrees with this point of view, but many, including myself am not convinced. Contraception that may inadvertently cause an abortion/or is designed to do so, ok, I see your point, but types like condoms and diaphragms, no, I’m not convinced.

BTW, please don’t give me the “I’m a bad Catholic” routine because of my feelings. It’s been done already.

A seared conscience is not a sin. The fact that you do not accept the teaching of the church could be the result of many things, other than being “bad”, whatever that is.

You may be uneducated about your faith, this is the reason that most people fail to follow the Teachings on these matters. It may be that you have not read Theology of the Body. Or perhaps you are in rebellion?

Your task is to become convinced, that takes study and prayer. Blessings upon your journey.

 

[guanophore]

Mike, I will not condemn you. I have the same reservations. I know it is a teaching of the Church, but I have a tough time with the reasoning behind condoms and diaphragms being sinful. NFP, condoms, and diaphragms are all “barriers” to pregnancy. In fact NFP, if properly done, is a more reliable barrier than condoms or diaphragms. I do a lot of praying about this, hoping God will “open my eyes”.

This is the right response to any difficulty we have with the Teachings. The reason NFP is not considered a barrier is because it is working together with the natual rhythms and functions of the body.

 

[guanophore]

Women are the ones who get pregnant, carry and bear children, raise them, and have abortions. In this country and, I suspect, throughout the world, the vast, vast majority of women support availability of contraception, and at least some access to abortion, particularly early abortion, “morning after” and emergency contraception, and in case of rape or incest.

Period.

It would be disingenous to purport that women’s reproductive choices have nothing to do with men.

 

[Joe_5859]

Women are the ones who get pregnant, carry and bear children, raise them, and have abortions. In this country and, I suspect, throughout the world, the vast, vast majority of women support availability of contraception, and at least some access to abortion, particularly early abortion, “morning after” and emergency contraception, and in case of rape or incest.

Period.

First, morality is not the result of democratic vote. So even if the above were true, it doesn’t prove anything.

Second, do you have any study to cite to support this claim that most women support contraception? Perhaps that is your experience, but mine is entirely the opposite. Most women I know (such as my wife) are very much against contraception and abortion. Of course, most women I know are faithful Catholics, so I wouldn’t presume to say that they represent the norm.

 

[jmcrae]

News bulletin, guys:

Women are the ones who get pregnant, carry and bear children, raise them, and have abortions. In this country and, I suspect, throughout the world, the vast, vast majority of women support availability of contraception, and at least some access to abortion, particularly early abortion, “morning after” and emergency contraception, and in case of rape or incest.

Period.

Just fyi, I am female, and I have always been opposed to both contraception and abortion.

If a child comes, it is God’s blessing. It is neither a curse or a disease to be female, nor to be pregnant, and the attitude that it is, is demeaning to women.

I do not need a pill to cure me of my femininity, and I do not need to kill my child in order to feel “empowered.”

 

[RobbyS]

While I’m sure your theory is true in some cases, IMO, it’s not an absolute.

People tend to becomes impatient with every constraint. The Planned Parenthood argument is receitful: we want you to have the maximum sexual pleasure withour worrry about becoming pregnant. BUT you must also agree to have sex in a very disciplined manner. Anyone who has observed a gymfloor full of boys and girls sleeping on blankets understands that people
don’t approach sex rationally.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Are you drawing from this study:

Family Planning Perspectives
Volume 27, Number 2, March/April 1995
"Using Induced Abortion to Measure Contraceptive Efficacy"

Good question,

I would like to know the answer. Do we have someone from Family Planning, or “Plan Parenthood” the (abortion organized) here among us? I sure hope not.

I Believe that "personal agendas” are not allow here at CAF.

Besides attempting to undermine Catholicism, is this person promoting abortion? By reading her posts, it sure looks like she is headed in that direction.

“1234”, what is you purpose here and do you work for ‘Plan Parenthood”?

 

[Scottgun]

You can set your watch to it. One says something like, “Natural Familiy Planning (NFP) doesn’t work.”. The NFP defender replies that it is every bit as effective as artificial birth control (ABC). On cue, the naysayer goes, “Aha! Then they are the same thing!” Now the defender has the unenviable task of explaining moral reasoning like explaining vector calculus to a gorilla. I got so tired of rehashing it that I typed up this Moral Evaluations 101 cheat-sheet a few years ago and just pasted it when the issue came up. It probably needs serious tweaking, but here it is. (I’m lifting and paraphrasing most of this from CCC 1749-1761):

The goodness or badness of an act must be evaluated according to 3 criteria:

1. The objective–this is the rightness or wrongness (or indifference) of an act in and of itself. (Examples: murder is objectively bad, almsgiving is objectively good.)
2. The subjective–this is the intent of the one doing the act (called the agent). Note that a good intention does not make an objectively evil act good, and that an evil intent can render a good act evil. (Such as giving alms in order to trick people into thinking you are pious).
3. The relative–this is all the surrounding circumstances and the actual result of the act or the end achieved. These do not change the objective goodness or badness of the act in and of themselves.

Plugging the above in it becomes abundantly clear that NFP is NOT morally equivalent to ABC and that the Church’s teaching is entirely consistent.

By the way, the techniques of NFP are not really an act, it’s information gathering. Having marital relations is the act. So:

1. The objective–Abstaining from sex is in and of itself morally indifferent. Putting pyhsical barriers between couples in the marital act or rendering the womb hostile to life with chemicals is objectively wrong. NFP passes gate #1. ABC does not, so it goes down as morally unacceptable right out of the gate. NFP passes, but is not quite out of the woods yet 'till we get to:
2. The subjective–as stated above, good intentions do not make objectively evil acts good. Here we can see that with an NFP-practicing couple, there is a possibility of evil intent which would render abstinence evil, but obviously it is hard for outsiders to judge others, because ta-da! it is subjective. (We can have a giant debate about what constitutes bad intent, but here I’m just dismantling the NFP=ABC canard.) Big red note: The intention to not have children in a particular fertile cycle by itself is not immoral.
3. The relative–and here is the cause of much the trouble regarding this teaching. We are living in the age of a widespread mental illness that denies the existence of #1 (objective right and wrongs), that everything is #2 and #3, and says the ends justify the means (consequentialism). So people look at the ends: ABC=no pregnancy, NFP=no pregnancy, and wrongly conclude they are morally equivalent. T’ain’t so.

So while one can lodge all kinds of complaints against the Church’s teaching on contraception, logical inconsistency or “distinction without a difference” with ABC should not be among them.

cordeliashoes.blogspot.com/2007/11/nfpabc-canard.html

 

[KathleenElsie]

Just fyi, I am female, and I have always been opposed to both contraception and abortion.

If a child comes, it is God’s blessing. It is neither a curse or a disease to be female, nor to be pregnant, and the attitude that it is, is demeaning to women.

I do not need a pill to cure me of my femininity, and I do not need to kill my child in order to feel “empowered.”

Well said think you.