NFP - Is it really natural?

[noma]

how can something that is ARTIFICAL be natural?

If an object assists in the right end of a person, act, or thing, or of a relationship with man, then that object is a natural good (it is “natural”).

For example, Basal Thermometers are artificial. They assist in the right end of the sexual act between a husband and a wife, and that is in the bearing of healthy children. It is, thus, natural to NFP. And NFP, though it involves artificiality (the process is an invented process), is natural to the bearing of healthy children.

Regulation of the number of children can have a bearing on the health of children. So other artifical methods (like other artifical birth control) can be natural.

Here we understand Aristotle’s definition of nature, and not the common definition. Aristotle recognizes that the product of art (something artificial) can also be natural, and its being natural depends on the telos, or the end of the thing, within its proper use.

The common definition dichotomizes nature and art. As such, something artificial is the product of art, rather than nature, and so is not natural. As a result, because natural family planning is a science applied to a certain result the goal of which is beauty of the family (the beauty associated with health), natural family planning would be artificial and not natural, within the common definition.

Both the Roman Catholic Church, and this poster operate (or, in my case, do our best to operate) within the definition of nature used by Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, and not the common definition.

I hope this helps clarify.

 

[Karin]

Not really clear…Artifical birth control such as the Pill, Deprovera etc. are not natural ( existing in or produced by nature; not artificial or imitation)
NFP is not artifical…NFP is abstinence during fertile times…nothing artifical in that…
What you are trying to do is justify your actions that you know go against what the Church states…

If an object assists in the right end of a person, act, or thing, or of a relationship with man, then that object is a natural good (it is “natural”).

For example, Basal Thermometers are artificial. They assist in the right end of the sexual act between a husband and a wife, and that is in the bearing of healthy children. It is, thus, natural to NFP. And NFP, though it involves artificiality (the process is an invented process), is natural to the bearing of healthy children.

Regulation of the number of children can have a bearing on the health of children. So other artifical methods (like other artifical birth control) can be natural.

Here we understand Aristotle’s definition of nature, and not the common definition. Aristotle recognizes that the product of art (something artificial) can also be natural, and its being natural depends on the telos, or the end of the thing, within its proper use.

The common definition dichotomizes nature and art. As such, something artificial is the product of art, rather than nature, and so is not natural. As a result, because natural family planning is a science applied to a certain result the goal of which is beauty of the family (the beauty associated with health), natural family planning would be artificial and not natural, within the common definition.

Both the Roman Catholic Church, and this poster operate (or, in my case, do our best to operate) within the definition of nature used by Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, and not the common definition.

I hope this helps clarify.

 

[noma]

Not really clear…Artifical birth control such as the Pill, Deprovera etc. are not natural ( existing in or produced by nature; not artificial or imitation)
NFP is not artifical…NFP is abstinence during fertile times…nothing artifical in that…
What you are trying to do is justify your actions that you know go against what the Church states…

The process of knowing that certain times are fertile or not is artificial. Basal thermometers are not produced by nature, yet they assist in NFP. I would argue that the Pill also is not produced by nature, yet assists in NFP.

After all, by taking the Pill one simply reduces the times one is fertile. Within this context, it is just another way to better determine times that are fertile.

I still stand by the definitions proposed.

 

[Karin]

The process of knowing that certain times are fertile or not is artificial. Basal thermometers are not produced by nature, yet they assist in NFP. I would argue that the Pill also is not produced by nature, yet assists in NFP.

After all, by taking the Pill one simply reduces the times one is fertile. Within this context, it is just another way to better determine times that are fertile.

I still stand by the definitions proposed.

The ABC takes away your feritlity…while NFP does not.

 

[noma]

The ABC takes away your feritlity…while NFP does not.

I agree. But this distinction has no bearing on Artificial Birth Control being natural or not. For fertility is naturally absent at times. So inventing something that produces in a more regulated way what occurs naturally is in accordance with nature.

And it is natural in purpose, if that purpose is in best helping to regulate the number of children a couple has.

 

[Karin]

I agree. But this distinction has no bearing on Artificial Birth Control being natural or not. For fertility is naturally absent at times. So inventing something that produces in a more regulated way what occurs naturally is in accordance with nature.

And it is natural in purpose, if that purpose is in best helping to regulate the number of children a couple has.

Noma-
your argument holds no value to me…you are arguing for something that goes against what the Church teaches…if you and your spouse want to fool around with your feritlity go for it ( ihope when you do want kids after using ABC you can actually have them and do not need IVF to conceive a child),…but do not tell me you are right becuase you use ABC and it is the same as NFP becuase your wrong…ABC is not right nor is it the same as NFP.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

**What you are trying to do is justify your actions **…

Over and over this is accused even when posters have been sterilized by nature or other, so why must proponents always throw out this accusation in contridiction of written posts ???

 

[Karin]

Over and over this is accused even when posters have been sterilized by nature or other, so why must proponents always throw out this accusation in contridiction of written posts ???

So know we go from sterilization to the use of ABC???
I threw it out becuase NOMA equates NFP with ABC and states that they are the same thing…they are not! So in my mind she or he is trying to justify their use of ABC even when they know that it goes against what the Church teaches!
Let me clarify my point…there is never any justification for the use of ABC (as birth control) if you are a Catholic and want to be in communion with the Church & God!

 

[noma]

there is never any justification for the use of ABC (as birth control) if you are a Catholic and want to be in communion with the Church & God!

I would agree that this is current Church teaching (or close to it), but it may not always be so.

 

[Canona]

Noma-
your argument holds no value to me…you are arguing for something that goes against what the Church teaches…if you and your spouse want to fool around with your feritlity go for it ( ihope when you do want kids after using ABC you can actually have them and do not need IVF to conceive a child),…but do not tell me you are right becuase you use ABC and it is the same as NFP becuase your wrong…ABC is not right nor is it the same as NFP.

Karin-It is obvious from your parenthetical words that you are “hoping” for the opposite of what you say. I don’t exactly understand the philosophical arguments written above, but it is very clear that when you couldn’t think of an intelligent response to Noma’s argument, you resorted to an ad hominem attack. In effect, you are saying that you hope they can never have children, a very unchristian remark. There was no reason to take a general discussion and turn it into a personal attack.

 

[LittleDeb]

If an object assists in the right end of a person, act, or thing, or of a relationship with man, then that object is a natural good (it is “natural”).

For example, Basal Thermometers are artificial. They assist in the right end of the sexual act between a husband and a wife, and that is in the bearing of healthy children. It is, thus, natural to NFP. And NFP, though it involves artificiality (the process is an invented process), is natural to the bearing of healthy children.

Regulation of the number of children can have a bearing on the health of children. So other artifical methods (like other artifical birth control) can be natural.

Here we understand Aristotle’s definition of nature, and not the common definition. Aristotle recognizes that the product of art (something artificial) can also be natural, and its being natural depends on the telos, or the end of the thing, within its proper use.

The common definition dichotomizes nature and art. As such, something artificial is the product of art, rather than nature, and so is not natural. As a result, because natural family planning is a science applied to a certain result the goal of which is beauty of the family (the beauty associated with health), natural family planning would be artificial and not natural, within the common definition.

Both the Roman Catholic Church, and this poster operate (or, in my case, do our best to operate) within the definition of nature used by Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, and not the common definition.

I hope this helps clarify.

If basal body temp thermometers were involved in the actual marital act, then I might agree with the “artificial” concern. Since Sympto-thermal method of NFP is just one many methods, it doesn’t hold that a thermometer used in a method makes it unnatural. Please remember that NFP is just information. NFP is an observation of signs that naturally exist. The marital act itself is never altered. That is what makes something artificial. It is an alteration of the item or act.

Your art example is a very good one. We can put the diclaimer on art, “No animals were harmed in the making of this art.” The item being painted, photographed, drawn, or even danced and acted out, the item has not been changed. Even if The Mona Lisa didn’t look exactly like the model, it is still a natural art. Di Vinci didn’t change her to look like his painting. Any changes he made were in the observation of her attributes and changed his painting to suit his purpose. She remained unchanged. She was not altered.

The withdrawl method of contraception is an example of contraception that involves no man-made items. Some misinformed people think it is a method of NFP. There is nothing natural about withdrawl, yet it involves nothing unnatural outside the act. It is another form of contraception that alters the act itself.

What makes NFP natural is that it does nothing to alter the marital act itself.

 

[Karin]

Karin-It is obvious from your parenthetical words that you are “hoping” for the opposite of what you say. I don’t exactly understand the philosophical arguments written above, but it is very clear that when you couldn’t think of an intelligent response to Noma’s argument, you resorted to an ad hominem attack. In effect, you are saying that you hope they can never have children, a very unchristian remark. There was no reason to take a general discussion and turn it into a personal attack.

Canona-
I never stated that I wished they never could have kids…
can you read?
I stated that after messing with their fetiltiy by using ABC ( which is known to screw with your future fertility) that they can have kids…I was pointing out to noma that this is a risk they are taking (loosing their fertility)

 

[Teakafrog]

If basal body temp thermometers were involved in the actual marital act, then I might agree with the “artificial” concern. Since Sympto-thermal method of NFP is just one many methods, it doesn’t hold that a thermometer used in a method makes it unnatural. Please remember that NFP is just information. NFP is an observation of signs that naturally exist. The marital act itself is never altered. That is what makes something artificial. It is an alteration of the item or act.

Exactly, what Deb said. We use Creighton method, so we never touch a thermometer. There, does it qualify as ‘natural’ to you now?

 

[Karin]

from another thread…this poster summed up ABC and what it is all about …
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1708632&postcount=9

Another way to look at it:

"Honey, I need you to pump yourself full of hormones so I can have sex with you."

Contraception wasn’t invented to prevent pregnancy. A 100% method for that has existed since the dawn of man. It’s called abstinence. Contraception was invented so we could have sex anytime we wanted, supposedly without consequences. We turned fertility into a health risk instead of the blessing from God that it really is

 

[maggieodae]

My position on vasectomy? It was a decision my husband and I made together, after my health issues led us to the conclusion that it would be best for our family if we did not have more children. When we married, we weren’t sure we could have any children because of my health issues; however, God blessed us with a wonderful son. We were so thankful, but decided that it would not be wise to risk another pregnancy. I offered to have my tubes tied, but my husband said that he would get a vasectomy instead, since it was a simpler procedure. That was ten years ago, and we have never regretted our decision. We have been happily married for 24 years.

We had major health issues on both sides. Decided to follow the Natural Law and Trust God. He blessed us with 3 beautiful children, which the world said should never be born. Married 42 years and buried my dh a year ago. Against all odds, our children are alive, beautiful and wanted.

The fact Medical science and the world said they should not be born, was not a problem.

We trusted God knew best.