NFP Hipocracy

[Christian4life]

AlanFromWichita:

You seem to be making the same points as I do that certain ABC techniques cannot be logically shown to be different, morally, than NFP. Given a couple’s reason to avoid conception is licit, as outlined in HV, do you believe there is a moral difference?

Alan

First off, I must state that I speak as a Protestant and do not really understand the Catholic Church’s position on the issue. Thus far, all I have read is an argument put forward that ABC vs NFP is morally equivalent based upon a hypothetical scientific analysis that both methods lead to the same end. For a moment, I would ask you to step back and consider it in the context of the real world. I have two questions on their moral equivalence:

1. Can anyone point me to any method of artificial birth control which is not used to promote promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, and worse?

I have seen advertising from every condom manufacturer advocating their use for one night stands and one even uses an ape as their mascot to portray the animalism of their product.

Our family next tried a diaphragm to discover it was made by ORTHO Pharmaceuticals, a division of Johnson and Johnson. They have a monopoly on the Pill and other ABCs, and manufacture nearly every abortion drug on the market, as well as making large donations to Planned Parenthood.

Speaking of Planned Parenthood, when I developed an interest in reading up on the Birth Control Movement, I was shocked to discover books and books by Margaret Sanger, Lothrop Stoddard, and other leaders of the movement, advocating Eugenics philosophy, genocide, euthanasia, and abortion.

1. Can anyone here honestly say that they absolutely cannot provide for another child?

The argument for ABC that I most often hear is that “every child should be a wanted child.” This is the exact same reasoning given for abortions. This is said in spite of the fact that the birth rate has plummeted in the past century, while our material wealth has skyrocketed. My grandmother came from a large and not-wealthy family of 13 (yet all were provided for, and 12 of survived into old age). Same story for my spouse’s family. In adding up our own expenses for our baby, we figured out that she consumes between $100-$150 of necessities each month (that is combining the amount spent on formula, diapers, etc.). If you breastfeed and choose cloth diapers, this amount would decrease dramatically (I should also mention another exception – the pro-life charities and government programs like WIC available to pregnant women to give them these items for absolutely free.). Our calculations did not include luxuries like the cool toys we buy on impulse. Now, take $150, that’s less than the cost of a pack of Marlboros each day, far less than the amount we put into our savings account each month, less than the cost of having a second car, etc. Heck, even giving up cable and internet adds up to around half! In a sense, life is cheap.

 

[TreeHugger]

rayne89:

But if you are a practicing Catholic you are permitted to use artificial birth control. That my friend is not open for debate.

you are NOT permitted to use artificial birth control.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Christian4life:

1. Can anyone point me to any method of artificial birth control which is not used to promote promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, and worse?

I have seen advertising from every condom manufacturer advocating their use for one night stands and one even uses an ape as their mascot to portray the animalism of their product.
This must be why I don’t hardly ever watch TV, to save me from that trash. Now that you mention it, I’ve heard some radio commercials that promoted promiscuity.

I don’t necessarily believe that condoms are being used to promote promiscuity and homosexuality; rather promiscuity and homosexuality are being exploited to promote condoms.

That said, what about the withdrawal method? Have you seen that in any TV ads?

1. Can anyone here honestly say that they absolutely cannot provide for another child?

The argument for ABC that I most often hear is that “every child should be a wanted child.” This is the exact same reasoning given for abortions.

Yes, I can almost hear Joycelyn Elders, “every chahld, a play-ind and wownted chahld.”

Since you’re not speaking from the Catholic point of view, perhaps you don’t know that NFP is considered licit only if there are “serious” reasons for not having a child. In other words, there are two ways that avoiding pregnancy may be wrong; one, with ABC, in which case it is always wrong, and the other, with NFP unless there is a serious reason. Be aware that financial reasons count as potentially “serious” reasons. I have six children, but I lost my job and am in the midst of bankruptcy. I would never part with any of them, who are themselves doing excellently in school, highly praised by their teachers, and are socially well-adjusted. Therefore on this part of your argument you don’t have to convince me!

Alan

 

[char34]

“NFP allows women to understand their bodies and how they are programmed to work. Are there any women who feel like they are “cheated” from this “unitive aspect” while practicing NFP?”

I know what you mean, which is why I’m a little confused about what Johnnyjoe said about the couples he dealt with. It’s not exactly easy for the woman to abstain when they need to, in fact I assume it could be even more difficult. At least it is in our case! I assume their husbands didn’t rape them, so if the women had grave enough reasons they could have refused their husbands.

Also, isn’t it a strange attitude for women to have, to wish she didn’t have so many children were spaced more in order to have more “breathing room”? Perhaps I misunderstood what Johnnyjoe meant.

 

[tamccrackine]

AlanFromWichita:

How can you say NFP is 100% open to life, but then also say that its use in avoiding new life has a 75%, or 99%, or whatever, chance of success? It would sound like NFP is 25%, or 1% open to life then, if my math is correct.

Alan

Only if you do fuzzy math I don’t know if you’re correct… I’m a biologist, not a mathmatician.

My comment in regards to NFP is 100% open to new life even extends to when a couple is abstaining regardless of the actual success rate to avoid pregnancy. The fact still remains that if you’re practicing NFP, you’re 100% open to life… meaning you won’t kill the child just because you conceived. So that 1% pregnancy rate of when WE thought NFP worked (meaning we got pregnant when we thought we were clear to not get pregnant) shows that God is in control, and we are still joyfully accepting of the new life.

I hope that didn’t confuse you or upset you. I’m not trying to upset anyone.
Peace
Theresa

PS… sorry I haven’t responded sooner… I never got back to this thread to see the other posts.

 

[johnnyjoe]

“NFP allows women to understand their bodies and how they are programmed to work. Are there any women who feel like they are “cheated” from this “unitive aspect” while practicing NFP?”

I know what you mean, which is why I’m a little confused about what Johnnyjoe said about the couples he dealt with. It’s not exactly easy for the woman to abstain when they need to, in fact I assume it could be even more difficult. At least it is in our case! I assume their husbands didn’t rape them, so if the women had grave enough reasons they could have refused their husbands.

In my experience as an NFP teacher, when a woman has a “serious” or “grave” reason to postpone pregnancy, the difficulty to abstain during the fertile period is somewhat lessened…that is why the reason is “serious”. My wife is one example, for if she was to get pregnant, both she and the babies life would be indangered…it does seem to put a damper on the libido.

I see a man’s role in this kind of situation as taking the inititive to show affection and love in non-genital ways. This I call the Art of Marital Courtship. It does not take away the yearning for relations during the fertile time, but it may help to keep the decision to abstain in the right perspective.

Also, isn’t it a strange attitude for women to have, to wish she didn’t have so many children were spaced more in order to have more “breathing room”? Perhaps I misunderstood what Johnnyjoe meant.

I only intended to mean it is generally considered less stressful to have children spaced about 2-3 years apart. If a woman “ecologically” breastfeeds - only breastmilk for the first 5-6 months, on demand feeding for the child - than she should experience breastfeeding infertility that should space the children 2-3 years apart.

 

[Celeste88]

renee1258:

From personal experience, sex is just better and cheaper. No costs beyond educating yourself, you have all your hormones. It is determined prior to snuggling in bed if you are fertile or not so there distruption in the love making. As for the Pill, unlike vitamins or vaccines they don’t improve the human sexual/reproduction system. the Pill shuts down your sexuality completely.

It is like treating a heart disease symptom by stopping your heart from pumping. Women joke around that the Pill is so effective because you have no desire to have sex.

The Pill is not the only thing that shuts down your sexuality. Prescription medications such as antidepressents, blood pressure medications (beta blockers) pain medications, etc. can dramatically lower your libido. What do you do if you’re a woman taking one or several of these medications? There is no Viagra for women on the market that I know of.

 

[manualman]

Wow, time capsule!

Alan, I’ve got something for you to chew on.

Almost all arguments I hear about NFP vs ABC revolve around the procreative aspect. You seem to find the view from that angle unconvincing. That may or may not be due to the anti-child influence of our modern culture. For me it was.

I found MUCH more gut-wrenching power in understanding how ABC is an affront to the UNITIVE aspect of marital sex! It has always been church moral teaching that married sex must always be an act of mutual giving. A new child is often the result of how much giving sex is intended to involve! Like most of us, I grew up in a culture where sex is mostly portrayed as being about getting pleasure for yourself, often making the woman a mere object in the process. I believe ABC has a lot to do with the growth of this attitude! With ABC, sex is subtly transformed into an act of taking, instead of giving. That attitude CAN occur in NFP or Providentialism, but it ALWAYS occurs in ABC. Think about it. What are you saying when you have sex with your wife and use a condom or ‘pull out?’ I WANT it NOW, and I want it with no strings! Real unitive, huh? Worse, it is addictive. Over time ABC TENDS towards making a couple LESS open to life and more selfish. There is no sacrifice involved. No hardship. Nothing pushes the couple back towards reconsidering whether they have a serious reason to not have a child right now. Now, reconsider NFP. When a couple discerns that a serious reason exists not to have another child right now and uses NFP to avoid pregnancy, they have to abstain during the time of month that SHE is likely to be most interested (as the poster above noted). THAT SACRIFICE is what sets NFP apart from ABC. It systematically revolves around openness to life. Every couple that uses NFP thinks EVERY MONTH about whether their reason is serious (at least for a couple of days!) Can ABC users REALLY say that? (ABC users actually know this at some level. It is the real reason they refuse to give NFP a try! They don’t WANT the sacrifice part!)

It continues to amaze me how few catholics embrace this treasure of catholic moral teaching. Compared to ABC, you get: fewer chemical complications, money savings, better marital communications, lower divorce rate, (usually) healthier family sizes, a guardpost against objectifying your spouse, and enhanced respect for the moral credentials of the church.

Some will try to narrow the church teaching down to Providentialism. Ignore them and read Humane Vitae for yourself! It’s not long and is surprisingly clear. Read the advice and pray/discern the serious reasons for yourself. Paul VI left it vague on purpose! (Don’t you think he would have been more specific if it were possible?) Yup, you CAN use NFP selfishly and become someone who sinfully uses his spouse for pleasure. But it is not automatically so in NFP. It IS with ABC.

P.S. After reviewing the post, my argument is BOTH unitive and procreative. How about that? I guess they are inseparable.