NFP - using male infertile times?

[Smber2c]

So we all know NFP is uses a womans hormone cycle to get or more likely avoid pregnancy. The church says ok b/c it’s natural and not altering the marrital embrace. (I’m simplifying a ton b/c that’s not my question or topic)

What if a man were to have a “natural” infertile period. Suppose I were a marathoner or cyclist and found that after a long training period my body temp had increased to the degree that I was sterile for the evening.

Would using my natural period of infertility to engage in marrital union without as likely a chance (say 99% reduced chance like ideal NFP) of getting my spouse pregnate be acceptable?

NOTE: I’m would differentiate b/t choosing to get really hot (say sitting in a hottub for an hour) for the intention of sterility vs. having a normal activity one does that happens to render temprary sterility, then upon noticing it, using it for their benefit. I’m interested in a “if it’s already a part of your day or way of life” situation, could you use it for such?

 

[tee_eff_em]

If males had naturally cyclic fertility, I imagine it would be legitimate to make notice of it. :twocents:

However I disagree that the circumstances described constitute *naturally *cyclic fertility. :twocents:

tee

 

[vz71]

What if a man were to have a “natural” infertile period. Suppose I were a marathoner or cyclist and found that after a long training period my body temp had increased to the degree that I was sterile for the evening.

Creating the conditions yourself is not the same thing as a natural cycle.
I suspect that is why there are quote marks around the word “natural.”

And on a side note…
We are going to run a marathon and then…:ehh:

Let’s use a more realistic example. Time in the hot tub perhaps…

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Also, with men, there are no signals or symptoms of infertility as women have.

So the man might think he’s infertile after running, strenuous exercise, sauna etc. that might not be the case. You only need 1.

 

[manualman]

Exactly. Marathon runners in hard training need not avoid relations with his wife out of scrupulous concern that the swimmers might all have died. But if he goes out and runs hard with the express purpose of killing off the little guys (not even discussing if this even WORKS here!) would be the same as rolling on a condom.

See the difference?

 

[Smber2c]

Exactly. Marathon runners in hard training need not avoid relations with his wife out of scrupulous concern that the swimmers might all have died. But if he goes out and runs hard with the express purpose of killing off the little guys (not even discussing if this even WORKS here!) would be the same as rolling on a condom.

See the difference?

I see a difference b/t:

1. jogging to kill sperm
2. jogging to jog, finding out the sperm die (hypothetical of course) and then using it as a worry free time of embrace.

But, what I don’t see is how this makes it “unnatural” which is the standard NFP defense. What does jogging take from the marrital embrace? What does it artificially introduce?

So, if men were made where sperm naturally die on weekends, then it would be okay to ententionally use that for NFP purposes; however, if sitting in a jogging, biking, or other activities may kill them - using that in the same way is not okay?

Can someone explain how these last 2 would differ? And perhaps, how they might differ from the current accepted version with females?

 

[vz71]

So, if men were made where sperm naturally die on weekends, then it would be okay to ententionally use that for NFP purposes; however, if sitting in a jogging, biking, or other activities may kill them - using that in the same way is not okay?

OK.
Your example concerning if men were naturally built such that the sperm were dead on weekends describes a condition that the man did not produce himself.

The example of a man jogging for the purpose of killing off sperm describes a condition in which the man produces the period of infertility.

It is a question of deliberately saying “No” to the process that generates children and simply taking advantage of a process already in place.

Far from being a “No” to the procreative process, it is actually a “No” to self as the person has to abstain during other times to make this particular method of birth control effective.

 

[Smber2c]

It is a question of deliberately saying “No” to the process that generates children and simply taking advantage of a process already in place.

Far from being a “No” to the procreative process, it is actually a “No” to self as the person has to abstain during other times to make this particular method of birth control effective.

It’s funny I follow the church on this (contraceptive teachings) but the logic just seems so porus.

What are the criteria for acceptable avoidance?

Periods of abstainance? No.
Having to abstain for intervals has nothing what so ever to do with the act of having sex while trying to avoid pregnancy. The act is either sinful or not on its own merits; I can’t beat up my neighbors then justify the action by saying that getting in fights is okay b/c it necessitates I spend intervals at the gym.
If married couples not having intervals of abstinance from intercorse is sinful then every Catholic should have to do it. If it’s just a way to be holy…well so are rosaries, confession, or daily mass and they are just as relevant to the topic.

Is it about mindset?
Must we mentally be open to having kids, then NFP is okay…no b/c one could mentally be just as open to kids taking a pill as others using NFP. Many people use NFP as a means to avoid kids for a time. My wife and I tried to (and we failed, and lovingly accepted our daughter, as we would have reguardless of the conditions of her conception). Really, tell me there are millions of Catholics using this NFP b/c the want to better understand hormonal cycles…no, the majority are using it to put off kids for a time - and to the best of my understanding that’s totally okay…but that being okay makes all sorts of problems…like aren’t these couples not very open (certainly not trying for) kids.

Maybe go less subjective and more concrete,
What about if its open to conception?
Well, how do we measure that? By percentages? NFP practiced correctly is the same effectiveness as a condom, so by a percentage measure they are even - so that must not be the scale.
What about judging openness as not introducing ‘unnatural’ elements? Okay, so synthetic hormones, vasectomys, tubal ligations, and condoms are certainly not natural…what if there was an organic sterility pepper? Is that natural?
What do we mean by natural? Is it natural for women, who get their strongest urges when fertile to specifically plan around that time. It is natural to join only on days on the cycle totally opposite of the only times when hormones are urging them? Most animals natuarlly mate only on fertile days, how is the opposite natural? It’s not by natures standard.

Maybe b/c it doesn’t use anything ‘artificial’. (though jogging/biking isn’t artificial either) Which begs the question, “why is artificial evil/forbidden?” If it isn’t mindset, success rate, periods of abstinance…and instead is “artificial” wouldn’t other non-contraceptive artificial products be sinful? Isn’t a gel just as artificial as latex? It isn’t the fact that latex is so effective that makes it a sin, so maybe it’s the ‘artificialness’…yet a gel is just fine - so that isn’t the answer.

I’ve also heard b/c its harder. This is just as irrelivent to the act as periods of abstinance is. If harder equates to holy we should all be Amish. Cars are quite easy, what about walking to even biking to work. Cell phones are nice, but morse-code is certainly harder. No, it isn’t acceptable b/c it’s harder.

Lets recap:
its not b/c of periods of abstinance.
its not b/c of a open mindset.
its not b/c of being statistically more open.
its not b/c of being more in line with natural life or hormonal urgings.
its not b/c artificial things are evil and can’t be used in the procreative act.
its not b/c its harder.

Could it be a combination of a few of these at once? I don’t see how. If that’s the answer I’m interested to hear how.

The only explination I see left is the one that seems evident from the start. The church felt guided (and hopefully was guided) to declare this a sin and obeyed. There is no solid logical argument for us here; but there isn’t a solid logical argement for 3 is 1 either. So, trust, have faith, and live a good life.

I can deal with this last one…but when people insist it’s answer 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6…which all have huge flaws, it bugs me. Stop insulting people intelligence. We can see contraditions, we can see inconsistancy. Just say that God has lead us to this understanding and that’s the rule.

I’ve worked as a college Catholic ministry position and I’m telling you, these half baked answers with holes all throughout lead many of the most intelligent students away. They want real answers, and a poorly made/incomplete argument does more damage than just saying trust us on this one - we’ve been right on so many other issues - the Holy Spirit is obviously at the wheel.

 

[mark_a]

It’s funny I follow the church on this (contraceptive teachings) but the logic just seems so porus.

What are the criteria for acceptable avoidance?

Periods of abstainance? No.
Having to abstain for intervals has nothing what so ever to do with the act of having sex while trying to avoid pregnancy. The act is either sinful or not on its own merits; I can’t beat up my neighbors then justify the action by saying that getting in fights is okay b/c it necessitates I spend intervals at the gym.
If married couples not having intervals of abstinance from intercorse is sinful then every Catholic should have to do it. If it’s just a way to be holy…well so are rosaries, confession, or daily mass and they are just as relevant to the topic.

Is it about mindset?
Must we mentally be open to having kids, then NFP is okay…no b/c one could mentally be just as open to kids taking a pill as others using NFP. Many people use NFP as a means to avoid kids for a time. My wife and I tried to (and we failed, and lovingly accepted our daughter, as we would have reguardless of the conditions of her conception). Really, tell me there are millions of Catholics using this NFP b/c the want to better understand hormonal cycles…no, the majority are using it to put off kids for a time - and to the best of my understanding that’s totally okay…but that being okay makes all sorts of problems…like aren’t these couples not very open (certainly not trying for) kids.

Maybe go less subjective and more concrete,
What about if its open to conception?
Well, how do we measure that? By percentages? NFP practiced correctly is the same effectiveness as a condom, so by a percentage measure they are even - so that must not be the scale.
What about judging openness as not introducing ‘unnatural’ elements? Okay, so synthetic hormones, vasectomys, tubal ligations, and condoms are certainly not natural…what if there was an organic sterility pepper? Is that natural?
What do we mean by natural? Is it natural for women, who get their strongest urges when fertile to specifically plan around that time. It is natural to join only on days on the cycle totally opposite of the only times when hormones are urging them? Most animals natuarlly mate only on fertile days, how is the opposite natural? It’s not by natures standard.

Maybe b/c it doesn’t use anything ‘artificial’. (though jogging/biking isn’t artificial either) Which begs the question, “why is artificial evil/forbidden?” If it isn’t mindset, success rate, periods of abstinance…and instead is “artificial” wouldn’t other non-contraceptive artificial products be sinful? Isn’t a gel just as artificial as latex? It isn’t the fact that latex is so effective that makes it a sin, so maybe it’s the ‘artificialness’…yet a gel is just fine - so that isn’t the answer.

I’ve also heard b/c its harder. This is just as irrelivent to the act as periods of abstinance is. If harder equates to holy we should all be Amish. Cars are quite easy, what about walking to even biking to work. Cell phones are nice, but morse-code is certainly harder. No, it isn’t acceptable b/c it’s harder.

Lets recap:
its not b/c of periods of abstinance.
its not b/c of a open mindset.
its not b/c of being statistically more open.
its not b/c of being more in line with natural life or hormonal urgings.
its not b/c artificial things are evil and can’t be used in the procreative act.
its not b/c its harder.

Could it be a combination of a few of these at once? I don’t see how. If that’s the answer I’m interested to hear how.

The only explination I see left is the one that seems evident from the start. The church felt guided (and hopefully was guided) to declare this a sin and obeyed. There is no solid logical argument for us here; but there isn’t a solid logical argement for 3 is 1 either. So, trust, have faith, and live a good life.

I can deal with this last one…but when people insist it’s answer 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6…which all have huge flaws, it bugs me. Stop insulting people intelligence. We can see contraditions, we can see inconsistancy. Just say that God has lead us to this understanding and that’s the rule.

I’ve worked as a college Catholic ministry position and I’m telling you, these half baked answers with holes all throughout lead many of the most intelligent students away. They want real answers, and a poorly made/incomplete argument does more damage than just saying trust us on this one - we’ve been right on so many other issues - the Holy Spirit is obviously at the wheel.

Good stuff.

It sounds like you’ve been through the ringer.

However, one would need to really, really distort CCC 2367 through 2370 to say that nfp is acceptable in any way a couple wants use it.

I don’t wish to be presumptuous with someone who has been on the front lines, but I found the following article extremely helpful:
ccli.org/nfp/morality/bible.php

 

[Newbie2]

Different issue, perhaps, but there’s been work on an anti-spermatozoa vaccine.

Vaccinating one’s self against a part of one’s body doesn’t seem to be a good idea, though.

In any case, if there were a natural rhythm to male spermatozoa number production…well, that’d be interesting.

 

[mark_a]

Different issue, perhaps, but there’s been work on an anti-spermatozoa vaccine.

Vaccinating one’s self against a part of one’s body doesn’t seem to be a good idea, though.

Some studies show that sperm antibodies in vasectimized men can cause dementia.

 

[Pug]

If you were to notice that you would have lowered sperm production for a time, there is nothing to stop you from having relations with your wife during that time, so long as everything else is Kosher, like she is willing, etc.

If you have sat in special water for two hours to deliberately kill all your sperm so that you can have relations with your wife at a deliberately altered rate of fertility, then I must tell you this is a bad idea. The Church will not go for that.

I think it would be the same if you had to take a drug for your heart, so you don’t die, but it has a side effect of lowering sperm count. Feel free to have relations with your wife while on the medication.

If, however, you fake a heart problem in order to obtain the medicine from your doctor because you want to lower your sperm count so that you can have relations with your wife with fewer sperm, then I must tell you this is also a bad idea.

 

[vz71]

It’s funny I follow the church on this (contraceptive teachings) but the logic just seems so porus.

I’ve worked as a college Catholic ministry position and I’m telling you, these half baked answers with holes all throughout lead many of the most intelligent students away. They want real answers, and a poorly made/incomplete argument does more damage than just saying trust us on this one - we’ve been right on so many other issues - the Holy Spirit is obviously at the wheel.

It is easy to argue with oneself.
After all, you control both sides.

How about we try again, this time without trying to put words in anyone’s mouth.

 

[manualman]

I see a difference b/t:

1. jogging to kill sperm
2. jogging to jog, finding out the sperm die (hypothetical of course) and then using it as a worry free time of embrace.

But, what I don’t see is how this makes it “unnatural” which is the standard NFP defense. What does jogging take from the marrital embrace? What does it artificially introduce?

So, if men were made where sperm naturally die on weekends, then it would be okay to ententionally use that for NFP purposes; however, if sitting in a jogging, biking, or other activities may kill them - using that in the same way is not okay?

Can someone explain how these last 2 would differ? And perhaps, how they might differ from the current accepted version with females?

The “Natural” part of church teaching refers to Natural Law, not crunchy granola. In other words, if GOD makes a particular time infertile, there is no reason to avoid that time. If YOU make it infertile purposely, that violates God’s design.
How do they differ? It all comes down to that: God is God. You aren’t. Sounds simple, but that is the root of most sin - trying to unseat God.

 

[TeachAg]

This is actually something that I have wondered about. I am not married yet so I do not have to worry about it now, but I hope to be in about a year.

I routinely do things as part of my life style that are known to reduce sperm count. For starters, I am a boots and wranglers kind of guy. Wearing that cut of pants keeps things closer to the body which equals more heat. When I am teaching shop classes (most of my work day), I wear coveralls over my regular clothes, more heat I suppose. After a long day, I like to take a hot soak in the tub and read. It is a way or relaxing for me and dealing with soreness. I do it usually a few times a week. Once again, higher heat exposure. I mountain bike. Shoot, the seat heaters in my truck probably could even have an effect. There are probably other things too.

These are all normal parts of my life and I do not think any of them are wrong. I plan to continue to do them when I am married and not worry about it. I would not use them as a method of NFP though. That would be unreliable and there would be no moral way to test the effectiveness of it even if using it for that reason was morally acceptable. On the reverse side of the issue, if we were specifically trying to have a baby, and it wasn’t working, I might look to see where I could modify make changes to increase fertility. Mr. “TeachAg” may have to go ghetto and ditch the wranglers

 

[mark_a]

The “Natural” part of church teaching refers to Natural Law, not crunchy granola. In other words, if GOD makes a particular time infertile, there is no reason to avoid that time. If YOU make it infertile purposely, that violates God’s design.
How do they differ? It all comes down to that: God is God. You aren’t. Sounds simple, but that is the root of most sin - trying to unseat God.

 

[Smber2c]

The “Natural” part of church teaching refers to Natural Law, not crunchy granola. In other words, if GOD makes a particular time infertile, there is no reason to avoid that time. If YOU make it infertile purposely, that violates God’s design.
How do they differ? It all comes down to that: God is God. You aren’t. Sounds simple, but that is the root of most sin - trying to unseat God.

Yes, you are right, Natural law isn’t about hugging trees and acting like apes or bears…if I’ve represented it as such I apologise. There is a tendancy when speaking of NFP to mix terms (w/t Natural Law and natural/artifical terms) and I’ll try avoiding that as best I can.

In relation to true Natural Law, well I guess I’m not much an expert. Natural Law would explain that we were provided with a conscious by God and that correctly formed it will guide us to right action - or a natural set of laws to guide our actions. Correct? (I hope)

Assuming that is fairly accurate…great, I fully agree. But it doesn’t provide an answer the question. For the whole issue is that conscious is so unclear for most here.

Yes, we must properly form it, but how? Logic is a great way, but where is that logic to form our conscious. Basically, if we inherintly already ‘feel’ NFP is sinnful or condoms are okay - what arguement would the Church provide to help form our conscious to her proper understanding?

Sure, as I said before, we can just trust the Church. St. Ignatius as something like “if I see black and the Church calls it white, I believe it is white” And I can live with that if it’s the best we have, but are their better tools to come to a Catholic understanding?

(basically, Natural Law seems more like the final goal not the answer.)

 

[Smber2c]

It is easy to argue with oneself.
After all, you control both sides.

How about we try again, this time without trying to put words in anyone’s mouth.

My long post was an attempt to deflect distractor arguments and cut to the heart of the matter, otherwise pages of flimsy arguments would be all I got and my understanding would not advance.

I’m not tying your hands, if my post is errant in reguard to an argument - say so. This is a forum, discuss stuff.

 

[vz71]

My long post was an attempt to deflect distractor arguments and cut to the heart of the matter, otherwise pages of flimsy arguments would be all I got and my understanding would not advance.

I’m not tying your hands, if my post is errant in reguard to an argument - say so. This is a forum, discuss stuff.

What you also were doing was constructing several straw men to knock over.

 

[Smber2c]

What you also were doing was constructing several straw men to knock over.

As I stated in my last post, if they are errent then enlighten me. This is a point in Catholic teaching where the logic is particularly thin. I’m okay with the “take it on faith” approach, and here it is the only viable answer that I can see.

A straw man argument, implys leaving out several curcial points that make an argument valid; I don’t see where I’ve done that, instead I’ve taken failed arguments and persented them as such (if they are strawmen they aren’t my strawmen, they are the strawmen others have asked me to believe).

Since you imply that you know the answer to my question, help me understand, which of these explinations is at the core to why NFP is okay:
b/c of periods of abstinance.
b/c of a open mindset.
b/c of being statistically more open.
b/c of being more in line with natural life or hormonal urgings.
b/c artificial things are evil and can’t be used in the procreative act.
b/c its harder.
b/c God revealed this to the Church.