Playing devil's advocate: withdrawal is natural birth control

  • Thread starter Thread starter duskyjewel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

duskyjewel

Guest
I know that withdrawal is not considered natural birth control and is not approved by the Church. But…

NFP is natural birth control. The couple uses their God-given intellect to learn about the fertility cycle, and then uses the knowledge gained to modify their sexual behavior by mutual consent. Their aim, in attempting to avoid pregnancy, is to make sure that there are no living, healthy sperm in the woman’s reproductive tract when she ovulates. Every now and then, you may get that extra hardy sperm that manages to outlive the normal lifespan and ends up causing conception. It is in being open to this possibility of life when God wills it to happen that NFP gains Church approval. They cooperate with the design of the human body and the reproductive cycle in order to have some control over when conception happens.

Withdrawal is also natural birth control. The couple uses their God-given intellect to learn about the way conception happens. They they use that knowledge to modify their sexual behavior by mutual consent. Their aim, in practicing withdrawal, is to make sure that no healthy, living sperm make it into the woman’s reproductive tract. Every now and then, you get either bad aim or a really good swimmer, or those few stray sperm in the pre-ejaculatory fluid, that might result in a conception. So why is it that, even with this possibility still there, this method does not gain the Church’s approval? The couple is still cooperating with the design of the human body, in using the man’s awareness of what is happening in his body, and the knowedge that without sperm there can be no baby, in trying to have some control over when conception happens.

Before anyone answers, please, let’s bypass all the admonitions about how this is not Church teaching. I know that. Also, let’s bypass all the “how dare you” and “you are going to confuse people” comments. Mature adults reading this post should be able to tell that I am not advocating this, nor am I claiming it is in line with Church teaching. I mean this to be a philisophical and thought exercise, as well as a way for someone to explain to me why this thinking is wrong and WHY withdrawal is not considered natural birth control. I am sure I will get some Onan answers, which will get “Every Sperm is Sacred” playing in my head. What is there beyond Onan?

P.S. Sorry if that last paragraph seems defensive. I have been through many of these discussions on the Family Life board, and the topic of birth control, in all its approved and non-approved forms, seems to be impossible to discuss without someone hyperventilating about the need to toe the Church line and never question anything.
 
With all of the limitations that you imposed it appears that this will be a rather short discussion
explain to me why this thinking is wrong and WHY withdrawal is not considered natural birth control.
Click to expand...
Because withdrawal is unnatural. It artifically interrupts the sexual union.
 
According to whom? Sexual behavior is not totally instinctive and animalistic. Humans add emotional elements, variations for fun and pleasure, and just simple preferences to the mix all the time.

One could argue that abstaining during the fertile period is extremely unnatural behavior, as that is when a woman’s drive is strongest. If she were acting only in a way that was natural, following her instincts, she would mate at that time. Instead, she uses her intellect to artificially interrupt her own drive for sexual union.
 
duskyjewel said:
According to whom? Sexual behavior is not totally instinctive and animalistic. Humans add emotional elements, variations for fun and pleasure, and just simple preferences to the mix all the time.

One could argue that abstaining during the fertile period is extremely unnatural behavior, as that is when a woman’s drive is strongest. If she were acting only in a way that was natural, following her instincts, she would mate at that time. Instead, she uses her intellect to artificially interrupt her own drive for sexual union.
Click to expand...
According to God. It is natural law.

I am not an animal. My will is perfectly capable of ruling my bodily passions. I will not be a slave to them.
 
davidv said:
According to God. It is natural law.

I am not an animal. My will is perfectly capable of ruling my bodily passions. I will not be a slave to them.
Click to expand...
That is EXACTLY my argument. The same is true for a man practicing withdrawal.

Instead of saying “it’s natural law” explain to me how natural law forbids this. Is it only the “integrity of the act?” Because as I said, sex is not governed only by instinct.
 
I have heard that there is a hormonal reaction that takes place in the woman’s body when the act is completed the way God intends that helps to bond the couple. This was used as an argument against condoms but I believe it applies here as well. I heard it on Greg Popchecks (SP?) radio show and I think he has covered this in one of his books.
 
C2K2 said:
I have heard that there is a hormonal reaction that takes place in the woman’s body when the act is completed the way God intends that helps to bond the couple. This was used as an argument against condoms but I believe it applies here as well. I heard it on Greg Popchecks (SP?) radio show and I think he has covered this in one of his books.
Click to expand...
Not to be rude, but this hardly proves that withdrawal is immoral. It shows it may not be ideal, but then, neither is the midnight, thank-God-the-kids-are-asleep quickie.
 
duskyjewel said:
Not to be rude, but this hardly proves that withdrawal is immoral. It shows it may not be ideal, but then, neither is the midnight, thank-God-the-kids-are-asleep quickie.
Click to expand...
Well then . . . why would the woman really feel anything more than being used. Since it is really just turning her into an object of “stress relief” for the man. I know I would be really upset if that was the extent of my relations with DH
 
C2K2 said:
Well then . . . why would the woman really feel anything more than being used. Since it is really just turning her into an object of “stress relief” for the man. I know I would be really upset if that was the extent of my relations with DH
Click to expand...
The woman in my scenario has consented to this form of birth control and is totally on board with using it. She is not an object. She is a woman using her own intellect to consent to a certain form of birth control, which BTW requires a huge amount of self-discipline on the part of the man, and a huge amount of trust from the woman. And I never said anything about her pleasure being denied. She is getting all the good feelings out of this she is supposed to.

Just incase anyone thinks I am looking for excuses, I am not a user of this method. Never have been. This is purely a mental exercise.
 
The reason why withdrawal is wrong, but NFP is okay is pretty simple. NFP is okay because it is based on periodic abstinence and self control. This is beneficial to people. Withdrawal is wrong because the people seek the please of relations but attempt defeat one of the two reasons for intimate relations. It is selfish and is a rejection of the natural gift of sexual relations.

This is backed up with scripture. In Genesis 38, we see the story of Onan. This has been frequently discussed on this forum. God punished Onan with death because he withdrew.

Calling withdrawal “natural” because it does not introduce chemicals, drugs or barriers is pointless. For example, it is natural if a strong man chokes a person that that person may be injured or die. We would hardly call that death by “natural causes” just because a man used his bare hands.
 
duskyjewel said:
The woman in my scenario has consented to this form of birth control and is totally on board with using it. **She is not an object. **She is a woman using her own intellect to consent to a certain form of birth control, which BTW requires a huge amount of self-discipline on the part of the man, and a huge amount of trust from the woman. And I never said anything about her pleasure being denied. She is getting all the good feelings out of this she is supposed to.

Just incase anyone thinks I am looking for excuses, I am not a user of this method. Never have been. This is purely a mental exercise.
Click to expand...
Somebody is using somebody in your scenario.
 
How can someone be getting used when she has consented, in full knowledge of what will take place?

P.S. Thanks, rpp, for a pretty good explanation. I’m still not there yet, but you helped.
 
duskyjewel said:
How can someone be getting used when she has consented, in full knowledge of what will take place?

P.S. Thanks, rpp, for a pretty good explanation. I’m still not there yet, but you helped.
Click to expand...
Your scenario is nothing short of masterbation…just because the items used to masterbate are the genitals, it makes it no less so. If you approve of this act or are somehow trying to justify it, then you approve of masterbation as well.

I see this whole thread as nothing more than mental gymnastics and talking around the truth.
 
  1. Our Church teaches that we should be giving “all” of ourselves to each other; completely and fully. Withdraw is saying, “I give you all of me…except for that.”
  2. I believe that John Paul II instructed us men to give ourselves fully to our spouse with our attention on pleasuring her and work to achieve climax together (atleast thats what I got from Theology of the Body). You can’t do that with withdraw.
  3. If you understood NFP, why would you want to practice withdraw? After using NFP for the five years of my marrage, I couldn’t imagine using anything else.
 
Withdrawal during the marital embrace is a fractured act, not natural, especially at climax for either the husband or wife. The natural tendency is to more closely draw/embrace each other in love.

God’s love is a complete love for his people not fractured or partial love. The marital embrace is meant to be a complete love as well, giving to each other fully.

The wife’s hormonal release, during the husbands climax in her is well documented.

1 Corinthians 7: 4-5

4 A wife does not have authority over her own body, but rather her husband, and similarly a husband does not have authority over his own body, but rather his wife.

5 Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.
 
Ilroy said:
I see this whole thread as nothing more than mental gymnastics .
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I intended it to be! I explicitly stated that!

Thank you also, GratefulDad, for a good explanation. I agree with you about the natural reactions of the body to be to draw closer at that moment, not pull away. 👍 That is the best “natural law” reason I have heard yet.

The full self-giving statements help too. So thank you.
 
duskyjewel said:
How can someone be getting used when she has consented, in full knowledge of what will take place?

P.S. Thanks, rpp, for a pretty good explanation. I’m still not there yet, but you helped.
Click to expand...
Lock of consent is not what constitutes use. Use is using another person to seek pleasure without fully accepting that person. When spuses reject each others, or even their own, fertility, they are not fully accepting their spouse or perhaps, even themselves. Thus engaging in marital relations with the intent to defeat fertility is in and of itself, using another person. Consent plays no part, rather it is the rejection of both some aspect of the souse as well as an attempt to override God’s will.

People are not required to have sex. Sex is not a past-time, a hobby or a time-killer. When any form of contraception is used, including withdrawal, intimate relations can no longer be considered a marital act, but rather an indulgence and the pursuit of individual pleasure.

This is why NFP, when used to avoid pregnancy, is so different and is, generally, morally acceptable. (Remember, NFP can also be used to get pregnant too!) It is based on self-control and personal gratification and indulgence are not part of it.
 
There is no difference between what the OP proposes and mutual masturbation. To hold it is correct, one must also find mutual masturbation correct, therefore individual masturbation is correct since the presence of another person as a witness to masturbation does not change the nature of the act.
 
duskyjewel said:
I know that withdrawal is not considered natural birth control and is not approved by the Church. But…

NFP is natural birth control. The couple uses their God-given intellect to learn about the fertility cycle, and then uses the knowledge gained to modify their sexual behavior by mutual consent. Their aim, in attempting to avoid pregnancy, is to make sure that there are no living, healthy sperm in the woman’s reproductive tract when she ovulates. Every now and then, you may get that extra hardy sperm that manages to outlive the normal lifespan and ends up causing conception. It is in being open to this possibility of life when God wills it to happen that NFP gains Church approval. They cooperate with the design of the human body and the reproductive cycle in order to have some control over when conception happens.

Withdrawal is also natural birth control. The couple uses their God-given intellect to learn about the way conception happens. They they use that knowledge to modify their sexual behavior by mutual consent. Their aim, in practicing withdrawal, is to make sure that no healthy, living sperm make it into the woman’s reproductive tract. Every now and then, you get either bad aim or a really good swimmer, or those few stray sperm in the pre-ejaculatory fluid, that might result in a conception. So why is it that, even with this possibility still there, this method does not gain the Church’s approval? The couple is still cooperating with the design of the human body, in using the man’s awareness of what is happening in his body, and the knowedge that without sperm there can be no baby, in trying to have some control over when conception happens.

Before anyone answers, please, let’s bypass all the admonitions about how this is not Church teaching. I know that. Also, let’s bypass all the “how dare you” and “you are going to confuse people” comments. Mature adults reading this post should be able to tell that I am not advocating this, nor am I claiming it is in line with Church teaching. I mean this to be a philisophical and thought exercise, as well as a way for someone to explain to me why this thinking is wrong and WHY withdrawal is not considered natural birth control. I am sure I will get some Onan answers, which will get “Every Sperm is Sacred” playing in my head. What is there beyond Onan?

P.S. Sorry if that last paragraph seems defensive. I have been through many of these discussions on the Family Life board, and the topic of birth control, in all its approved and non-approved forms, seems to be impossible to discuss without someone hyperventilating about the need to toe the Church line and never question anything.
Click to expand...
Withdrawal is an interruption but NFP is a discipline. Withdrawal erodes the very act for both the male and the female while NFP enhances the act for both the male and the female.
 
well, this is an interesting topic.

Withdrawal, for one frustrates the marital act, the husband must orgasm within the context of intercourse with the wife.

Also, it really isn’t that reliable a method…if the woman is fertile, you only need 1 sperm…and sperm can be present in the man’s preejaculate. Same way, if a woman is fertile, she can still become pregnant if the man ejaculates near her.

So, basically it’s sort of futile…if you are going to start…you have to finish.

Hope I’m not to graphic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top