Is NFP "Open to life"?

[MilesVitae]

In some conversations I’ve had with other Catholics, they have argued that NFP is open to life, while contraception is not.

I’ve never quite bought this, and I’m curious to hear others’ opinions on it. It seems like a poor argument to me. It seems to me that when a person uses NFP to avoid conception, they are closed to life, in the sense that they’re intention is to avoid the procreation of a new life and, when they engage in intercourse, they hope it will not result in conception, just as in the case of contraception. They might be open and welcoming to any life which might, unintentionally, result from the sexual act, but the same can be true of someone using contraception. So, is this really a valid argument for the distinction between NFP and contraception?

I will say that I see how contraception can be said to close the sexual act itself to life, in that its purpose is to stop life from coming to be when it would otherwise come to be. In the case of NFP, one does not stop life where it would otherwise occur - one merely avoids the situation in which it would occur. Iow, contraception closes an otherwise fertile act to life. This makes sense - but beyond that, I don’t see how NFP and contraception can be opposed to each other as "open to life’ and “closed to life” respectively.

Thoughts?

 

[1ke]

it is simply imprecise language. NFP is simply information. It can be used to decide whether or not to engage in the marital act depending upon whether one is attempting to avoid/space or achieve pregnancy.

It is the act of intercourse itself that is either properly ordered or disordered.

Contraception disorders intercourse.

Abstaining from intercourse is not a disordered action, and neither is a completed act of intercourse. Therefore, the person acting on NFP information never engages in a disordered at of intercourse.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In some conversations I’ve had with other Catholics, they have argued that NFP is open to life, while contraception is not.

I’ve never quite bought this, and I’m curious to hear others’ opinions on it. It seems like a poor argument to me. It seems to me that when a person uses NFP to avoid conception, they are closed to life, in the sense that they’re intention is to avoid the procreation of a new life and, when they engage in intercourse, they hope it will not result in conception, just as in the case of contraception. They might be open and welcoming to any life which might, unintentionally, result from the sexual act, but the same can be true of someone using contraception. So, is this really a valid argument for the distinction between NFP and contraception?

I will say that I see how contraception can be said to close the sexual act itself to life, in that its purpose is to stop life from coming to be when it would otherwise come to be. In the case of NFP, one does not stop life where it would otherwise occur - one merely avoids the situation in which it would occur. Iow, contraception closes an otherwise fertile act to life. This makes sense - but beyond that, I don’t see how NFP and contraception can be opposed to each other as "open to life’ and “closed to life” respectively.

Thoughts?

I used to differentiate NFP to non-abortive ABCs as well until someone made me realize that we’re are just fooling ourselves with that point of view. If one uses NFP to avoid conception, then it is the same as using non-abortive ABCs. The intent is certainly the same.

 

[Observer3]

In some conversations I’ve had with other Catholics, they have argued that NFP is open to life, while contraception is not.

I’ve never quite bought this, and I’m curious to hear others’ opinions on it. It seems like a poor argument to me. It seems to me that when a person uses NFP to avoid conception, they are closed to life, in the sense that they’re intention is to avoid the procreation of a new life and, when they engage in intercourse, they hope it will not result in conception, just as in the case of contraception. They might be open and welcoming to any life which might, unintentionally, result from the sexual act, but the same can be true of someone using contraception. So, is this really a valid argument for the distinction between NFP and contraception?

I will say that I see how contraception can be said to close the sexual act itself to life, in that its purpose is to stop life from coming to be when it would otherwise come to be. In the case of NFP, one does not stop life where it would otherwise occur - one merely avoids the situation in which it would occur. Iow, contraception closes an otherwise fertile act to life. This makes sense - but beyond that, I don’t see how NFP and contraception can be opposed to each other as "open to life’ and “closed to life” respectively.

Thoughts?

Miles, it’s good that you are challenging this issue and deciding for yourself. It’s an interesting issue that I too spent a lot of time thinking about and researching.

I personally came to the conclusion that contraception and NFP were pretty much the same. As you indicate, the intention is the same in both practices - to avoid or delay pregnancy. The disadvantage with NFP of course is that you have a much higher chance of pregnancy with the sperm able to live inside the woman for up to 7 days, and also a much higher chance of getting an STD.

The argument that one size fits all never made sense to me. I know of some couples where one partner has an STD. They have to use condoms in order to protect the male. If my son or daughter were going to have sex with someone they didn’t know really well, I would rather he/she use a condom rather than infect themselves with HIV. If you really think about this point I just said, it points out what I believe is a major flaw in the churches stance on condoms.

I wish you the best, and you and only you can decide. But I hope you’ll only bring children into the world if you want to bring them in.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Miles, it’s good that you are challenging this issue and deciding for yourself. It’s an interesting issue that I too spent a lot of time thinking about and researching.

I personally came to the conclusion that contraception and NFP were pretty much the same. As you indicate, the intention is the same in both practices - to avoid or delay pregnancy. The disadvantage with NFP of course is that you have a much higher chance of pregnancy with the sperm able to live inside the woman for up to 7 days, and also a much higher chance of getting an STD.

The argument that one size fits all never made sense to me. I know of some couples where one partner has an STD. They have to use condoms in order to protect the male. If my son or daughter were going to have sex with someone they didn’t know really well, I would rather he/she use a condom rather than infect themselves with HIV. If you really think about this point I just said, it points out what I believe is a major flaw in the churches stance on condoms.

I wish you the best, and you and only you can decide. But I hope you’ll only bring children into the world if you want to bring them in.

The Church’s stance is that you shouldn’t be having sex with someone you don’t know really well anyway. Unless you are in an arranged marriage and just met your spouse on your wedding day.

This discussion is about married couples who want to space their children.

 

[DeMontfort2]

I used to differentiate NFP to non-abortive ABCs as well until someone made me realize that we’re are just fooling ourselves with that point of view. If one uses NFP to avoid conception, then it is the same as using non-abortive ABCs. The intent is certainly the same.

the intent is not the same. using NFP automatically presupposes the openness to life.

 

[ChrisB103]

I’m with 1ke. NFP can be used to be open to life or closed to life in certain situations. This is why we are reminded that we must have a serious reason to use NFP to avoid conception, lest it become just another tool in the contraceptive culture. However, it’s important to make a distinction that it seems many people fail to make; there are acts that are objectively disordered - intention is not the only factor. One’s intentions may affect the culpability of the individual, but they do not change the objective morality or immorality of an act.

So basically, I’m with you, Miles. I don’t think “NFP is more open to life” is a good blanket argument. I do think that NFP may lead people to be more open to life because they have to consider whether or not to abstain (which is harder than whether or not to take a pill, etc.), but in and of itself NFP is morally neutral, because it is simply information. If you’re interested in tons of secular arguments against using contraception, check out 1flesh.org. It’s an organization ran by mostly college kids, and it’s quite thought-provoking.

God bless.

 

[DeMontfort2]

Miles, it’s good that you are challenging this issue and deciding for yourself. It’s an interesting issue that I too spent a lot of time thinking about and researching.

I personally came to the conclusion that contraception and NFP were pretty much the same. As you indicate, the intention is the same in both practices - to avoid or delay pregnancy. The disadvantage with NFP of course is that you have a much higher chance of pregnancy with the sperm able to live inside the woman for up to 7 days, and also a much higher chance of getting an STD.

The argument that one size fits all never made sense to me. I know of some couples where one partner has an STD. They have to use condoms in order to protect the male. If my son or daughter were going to have sex with someone they didn’t know really well, I would rather he/she use a condom rather than infect themselves with HIV. If you really think about this point I just said, it points out what I believe is a major flaw in the churches stance on condoms.

I wish you the best, and you and only you can decide. But I hope you’ll only bring children into the world if you want to bring them in.

this is too ridiculous to not be a troll.

 

[underacloud]

I hope you’ll only bring children into the world if you want to bring them in.

I hope he brings children into the world that God wants to bring in.

 

[ConstantineTG]

the intent is not the same. using NFP automatically presupposes the openness to life.

How? If you are using it to avoid getting pregnant, how is that a presupposition? And have you even attended an NFP seminar? They market it so much that it is more effective in preventing pregnancies than most ABCs. I fail to see where the openness to life is.

 

[ChrisB103]

the intent is not the same. using NFP automatically presupposes the openness to life.

If using NFP automatically presupposes the openness to life, then why are we warned by the Church that we must have a serious reason to use NFP to avoid conception? It seems to me that we can have the same intent to avoid pregnancy with NFP or with contraception, but the means are different. Basically, the ends don’t justify the means.

 

[ChrisB103]

I used to differentiate NFP to non-abortive ABCs as well until someone made me realize that we’re are just fooling ourselves with that point of view. If one uses NFP to avoid conception, then it is the same as using non-abortive ABCs. The intent is certainly the same.

Constantine, what makes you think that the intent of an act is the only important aspect when it comes to morality? Please forgive me if I’m reading that meaning into your post, that’s just what I came away with after reading it. As an analogy, think of two people with the intent to serve God with equal fervor. Let’s say we have a Christian who gives his life as a martyr, and a radical Muslim who gives his life as a suicide bomber. Both intend to give their lives to serve God, but the Christian is doing so in a morally licit way and the radical Muslim is not. Is it not true that the objective morality of the act is also vitally important?

 

[underacloud]

I think the term “open to life” is a loose approximation of the term “ordered to procreation”, which is the more technically appropriate term.

A sexual act is ordered to procreation when it is conducted in the proper, natural manner. It is open to life in that it is completed intercourse in the way God intended. Sometimes God intends that, through nature, intercouse is not going to result in conception. We cooperate with that when using NFP.

Using ABC changes the act; it disorders it. It rejects God’s design in nature by closing the act off to the potential for conception.

So yes, the intention to avoid conception may be the same. But the means differ. In NFP we cooperate with God, while using ABC we work against God.

On a practical level, NFP is generally more open to life that the most effective ABCs because the techniques as commonly used (ie couples deciding to “risk it”, or the techniques being difficult for some) are often less effective at avoiding pregnancies. But even if they were just as effective, it’s the means (as outlined above) that determine the moral difference between NFP and ABC, not the outcomes.

 

[Observer3]

this is too ridiculous to not be a troll.

We may not agree on everything, but please don’t call me a troll - it’s insulting. There’s no rule saying we all have to agree on everything on this forum. I spent many months thinking about this NFP issue, exploring all the angles I could. I’m just offering some advice to someone who was asking for others opinions. I don’t claim my answer is “the” answer, all I am doing is sharing my logical explanation.

 

[ChrisB103]

We may not agree on everything, but please don’t call me a troll - it’s insulting. There’s no rule saying we all have to agree on everything on this forum. I spent many months thinking about this NFP issue, exploring all the angles I could. I’m just offering some advice to someone who was asking for others opinions. I don’t claim my answer is “the” answer, all I am doing is sharing my logical explanation.

Honest question: how is it logical to enable someone you love (a child of yours, for example) to have sex with someone they don’t know well - someone who could possibly risk their physical and spiritual health?

 

[Observer3]

Honest question: how is it logical to enable someone you love (a child of yours, for example) to have sex with someone they don’t know well - someone who could possibly risk their physical and spiritual health?

Chris, I’m certainly not promoting this kind of behavior, but I’m rather speaking about a situation that happens a lot. Thousands of teenagers every year face this temptation and give in unfortunately. If my child were to have unwise sex, I would rather them risk less by using a condom. I would of course try to talk my child into saving themselves for marriage, but I know in the real world, this doesn’t always happen.

 

[ChrisB103]

Chris, I’m certainly not promoting this kind of behavior, but I’m rather speaking about a situation that happens a lot. Thousands of teenagers every year face this temptation and give in unfortunately. If my child were to have unwise sex, I would rather them risk less by using a condom. I would of course try to talk my child into saving themselves for marriage, but I know in the real world, this doesn’t always happen.

I agree that it’s certainly ideal to do your very best to talk your child out of making such a poor decision, and I also agree that plenty of children would go ahead and have sex anyways. However, I don’t agree that providing (or even suggesting/allowing) contraceptive use by ones children could ever be a good idea (for use as contraceptives, that is). You see, as Catholics, we believe that contraceptive use is objectively disordered. Enabling our children to do something that is objectively disordered can in no way be a truly loving act - it seems to me to be an act of tolerance of sin and an attempt to make the effects of sin seem less real. I’d be open to hearing how providing contraceptives to children can be a loving act, where love is the desire for the ultimate good of the beloved. I understand that this is a sensitive subject for many, so please understand that my goal is simply to enter into dialogue. God bless.

 

[DeMontfort2]

We may not agree on everything, but please don’t call me a troll - it’s insulting. There’s no rule saying we all have to agree on everything on this forum. I spent many months thinking about this NFP issue, exploring all the angles I could. I’m just offering some advice to someone who was asking for others opinions. I don’t claim my answer is “the” answer, all I am doing is sharing my logical explanation.

all i really had to do was read your sig.

vote pro-life. vote obama.

there’s no taking you seriously after having read that.

 

[Observer3]

all i really had to do was read your sig.

vote pro-life. vote obama.

there’s no taking you seriously after having read that.

Well, that’s fine. It’s obvious you’re not quite ready for real discussion, since you see everything in black and white.

 

[Observer3]

I agree that it’s certainly ideal to do your very best to talk your child out of making such a poor decision, and I also agree that plenty of children would go ahead and have sex anyways. However, I don’t agree that providing (or even suggesting/allowing) contraceptive use by ones children could ever be a good idea (for use as contraceptives, that is). You see, as Catholics, we believe that contraceptive use is objectively disordered. Enabling our children to do something that is objectively disordered can in no way be a truly loving act - it seems to me to be an act of tolerance of sin and an attempt to make the effects of sin seem less real. I’d be open to hearing how providing contraceptives to children can be a loving act, where love is the desire for the ultimate good of the beloved. I understand that this is a sensitive subject for many, so please understand that my goal is simply to enter into dialogue. God bless.

Chris, I understand what you’re saying and I of course am aware of the official stance of the church. I just happen to disagree with some of these rules that were created by the church.

I believe that just because something isn’t ideal, doesn’t mean there’s no love involved. As parents, we want to protect our kids, and contraceptives can certainly protect them in times of poor judgment.

I had a lot of experience in my past where I saw things in black and white on certain issues, and it really damaged my relationships with people. I would hope no one would have to go through what I did and experience the harsh lesson of clinging to idealism and not being open to other possibilities of truth. Anyway, I’m not saying you are right or wrong Chris, I’m just sharing my opinion.