No birth control is really hard if you're poor

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brogan2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
According to the planned parenthood website
Blockquote
If you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, they’re 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. But people aren’t perfect, so in real life condoms are about 85% effective — that means about 15 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year.
Click to expand...
Blockquote
Click to expand...
So even if used perfectly condoms are still 2% open to life. Maybe that means you’d only be committing 98% of a mortal sin.

Jokes aside, how is condom use essentially different from a post menapuasal couple having sex? Both are not open to life.
 
“Open to life” is not the standard (while it is a wildly popular phrase these days!) “ordered toward procreation” is what the Church teaches.
 
Brogan2 said:
Jokes aside, how is condom use essentially different from a post menapuasal couple having sex? Both are not open to life.
Click to expand...
I disagree. A post menopausal couple cannot conceive because of hormonal changes in the woman. There is no deliberate effort to avoid pregnancy.
 
Well aware there has been dissent.

This does not prevent you from working to start a “NFP Awareness Week” at your parish.
 
JohnStrachan said:
Okay. Then 98% of RC’s are in this predicament. I am not arguing the gravity. If this is the case then, this should be preached regularly, the sacrament of penance should be widely available and clergy should note before communion that a RC must be in a state of grace to receive communion. And each church should have NFP classes. There is a great deal of convenient ignorance on this issue in the church.
Click to expand...
To complain about the Catholic Churches when you are not Catholic is odd.
 
Because the marital act is done in the same manner that it is done if one is of childbearing years. Nothing is done to frustrate the act.
 
But both parties know conception is impossible. Nothing about what they are doing is ordered toward procreation.
 
This group must stay PG-13.

The mechanics of the marital act are what matters. Ordered toward procreation.
 
Brogan2 said:
But both parties know conception is impossible. Nothing about what they are doing is ordered toward procreation.
Click to expand...
But they are open to life. If what you say is true, then all married couples fall into grave sin once their wife reaches menopause. This is ridiculous.
 
Brogan2 said:
But both parties know conception is impossible. Nothing about what they are doing is ordered toward procreation.
Click to expand...
It is not a sin to have sex in which conception is not naturally possible. It is a sin to deliberately modify the act to prevent conception. Likewise, the use of contraceptive drugs is not necessarily sinful; they can be used to treat other conditions, in which case contraception is a side effect. This is not consequentialist position; it is not that failing to conceive is a sin. It is that deliberately chopping off the procreative nature of sex is a sin.

It is not a sin to accidentally say something that is untrue; it is a sin to knowingly lie.
 
TheLittleLady said:
The mechanics of the marital act are what matters. Ordered toward procreation.
Click to expand...
The way it makes the most sense to me is that NFP works with how God designed a womans body. ABC goes against the design of the body. Hope this helps some people.

I have no advice for the OP. I would train in as many methods as possible and try to see what is the most reliable, but no method is 100% effective. Nor is any method of ABC.
 
Brogan2 said:
We can’t use NFP because she is highly irregular.
Click to expand...
This is not factually correct. Observation of fertility signs is not dependent upon “regular” cycles.

What method have you taken instruction in?
 
If the OP’s wife’s periods are that irregular, couldn’t she use contraceptives solely to regulate the cycle, without intending the contraceptive effect?

For reasons that I have discussed in other posts and will not re-hash here, I submit that a couple in these circumstances should still abstain during what can be foreseen as the potentially fertile cycle. But that is only my own opinion that I can impose on no one.
 
1ke said:
This is not a true statement
Click to expand...
What is the true statement then? Does not then RC church oppose even natural methods if the intention is to avoid having children permanently? My wedding vow was pretty clear: “will you accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the teaching of Christ and his church.” If your intention is to avoid having kids, then even NFP is unacceptable.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top