Natural vs Artificial Birth Control

[Mavzylor]

I’m not at all interested in contraception, but I’d like to fully undersrand the topic. Contraception obviously isn’t unitive since you are rejecting your spouse’s fertility, and in the case of certain ones there is physically a barrier preventing unity. However, when it comes to the pro-creative aspect, why are natural methods of postponing better than artificial methods? Both have the same goals, and since God is all powerful, neither can prevent a child if God wills one.

 

[Fauken]

I’m assuming by natural you mean NFP?

NFP revolves around a woman’s monthly cycle. It is still entirely possible to get pregnant while using NFP. The difference is that the couple abstains during a woman’s most fertile time.

 

[Mavzylor]

I know the difference between NFP and contraception. I’m asking the difference in meeting the pro-creative aspect. As I said above, both aim to postpone pregnancy, and neither are more powerful than God’s will.

 

[Lifeisbeautiful3]

Ironically, it’s also ‘entirely possible’ to get pregnant with condoms. What ‘percent possibility’ deems a method of birth control as morally acceptable? 1%? 3%? 30%? If there’s a hole that’s a nano meter larger than a sperm in a condom or a diaphragm which yields x% chance of pregnancy vs. y% with NFP, is that acceptable?

 

[Wife.of.Gabriel]

Lol & my 23 year old is living proof you can get pregnant while using birth control pills. That’s when I realized if God wants you to have a child, you’re going to have one and of He doesn’t want you to, you won’t. Attempting to control fertility is like trying to control God… it’ll only work, if He wants it to.

NFP is morally acceptable, I would think, because it exclusively uses periodic brief abstinence periods which in the New Testament describes as acceptable when both spouses agree, and because it’s natural aka doesn’t interfere with a woman’s body/hormones & also because it allows for the normal completion of each marital act aka no barriers to the full giving & receiving between spouses. I think these are what’s different between NFP and ABC.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

I could well be wrong, but my understanding is that NFP isn’t to be used exclusively to not get pregnant, and that using sex in anyway that is sought to intentionally circumvent the possibility of life is sinful.

 

[Mavzylor]

It is morally acceptable to use NFP to postpone pregnancy. You just need to stay open to having children should it happen.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

NFP is using the understanding of your bodies for the desired result without interrupting the natural ability.

ABC is chemically changing your body for the desired result corrupting the healthy and natural process.

ABC is akin to using uppers to do better on tests. In moderation, there’s little “consequence” yet most people feel that this chemical enhancement is wrong. So why don’t we apply the same thought pattern to fertility?

 

[paperwight]

. That’s when I realized if God wants you to have a child, you’re going to have one . .

I think that’s strongly debateable. What about the babies who are conceived by alcohol- or drug dependent mothers and who are born damaged? And twelve year old girls raped by a family member?

 

[Mavzylor]

Thank you. That first part clarifying the official teaching of “ordered per se to procreation” was very helpful. The second part made me have another question, but I’m going to create a new thread.

 

[Wife.of.Gabriel]

You don’t think God wants those children? If course he does!

I know of a woman who’s son was born with fetal alcohol syndrome and he has been such an inspiration to her, the light of her life, and he became the cause of her recovery.

I’ve personally adopted a child born tox positive to a drug addicted birth mother and she’s an amazingly wonderful daughter - her special Gift from God has been apparent even as a young child, she has the Gift of Comforting… I’ve even seen her give Comfort to a kid who doesn’t like her.

 

[Pup7]

Because artificial contraception, like the Pill, prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the lining of the uterus. In short, it is a potential abortifacient.

 

[Mavzylor]

That is true, but the same argument can’t be applied to condoms. However, I’ve gained understanding from (name removed by moderator)'s answer.

 

[Pup7]

Physical barriers block the sperm from ever reaching the egg. Therefore, sex isn’t open to life.

 

[Mavzylor]

I know that. My point was that condoms can fail and God can work miracles, so there is still a chance of life when using a condom, just as there is without a condom during the “infertile” time of a woman’s cycle.

 

[Pup7]

Only going by what I’ve been taught, by a deacon. Apparently this person is incorrect, so I get your frustration.

 

[Pup7]

I agree. I’ll make the self-correction. Fair enough. :+1:t3:

 

[pensmama87]

A simple explanation I like: NFP doesn’t change the act or the people in the act.

 

[Mavzylor]

I think the simplest answer to my question is that my question is irrelevant. Procreation doesn’t seem to have any relevance in the argument against contraception, because despite the fact that God can bring about a child no matter what you try to do to prevent one, contraception is simply wrong because of the reasons stated in this thread: it defies God’s will by defying His design, and it prevents full unity between spouses. Thank you everybody for trying to answer a question that I guess didn’t make sense.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m not at all interested in contraception, but I’d like to fully undersrand the topic.

It’s probably a semantic argument you’re getting caught on.

Contraception obviously isn’t unitive since you are rejecting your spouse’s fertility, and in the case of certain ones there is physically a barrier preventing unity.

Don’t conflate the unitive function of sex with the procreative function - which is what you’ve done here.

They’re two separate things. I’ve not seen anything showing that contracepted sex is observably any more or less unitive than non-contracepted sex.

However, when it comes to the pro-creative aspect, why are natural methods of postponing better than artificial methods?

Honestly? The difference appears to be bald fiat.

The goal of either is “have sex! …but avoid making babies”. Outside of the traditional Catholic paradigm, that’s what “contraception” means. Ergo, NFP is contraceptive just like The Pill is. It just doesn’t use artifice to achieve the end and because of that, some folks think that somehow makes it sufficiently “open to life” in a way the pill isn’t (and despite The Pill and perfectly executed NFP having nearly identical “failure rates” per pro-NFP literature).

The rationalists watching the display from outside the fence are left scratching their heads; virtually without exception.

Both have the same goals, and since God is all powerful, neither can prevent a child if God wills one.

As you “see” the problem, your primary solution - if you want to remain a devout Catholic - is to try and un-see it.

Best of luck with that.

[Note: While NFP may not use artifice in the same way The Pill does to achieve contraception, perfectly performed NFP almost certainly requires the employment of ovulation kits so that ovulation may be as precisely timed as possible. This is, of course, the use of an artificial object in making NFP work.
Which complicates matters; but I don’t think you need my help to point that out.]