Playing devil's advocate: withdrawal is natural birth control

[davidv]

I’m not going to argue there is anything wrong with NFP, I was simply pointing out a bit of irony. If we define masturbation as a sexual act that is not ‘open to life’, then NFP would qualify then as masturbation, especially considering that when done properly it is more effective then artificial birth control.

This is slight off topic. So in you want to discuss this point further please start another thread.

Your proposed definition of masturbation is not correct. Please search the CCC for the proper definition. There is no masturbation, mutual or otherwise, involved in NFP. If you think so, I don’t think you know what NFP is.

 

[1ke]

I’m not going to argue there is anything wrong with NFP, I was simply pointing out a bit of irony. If we define masturbation as a sexual act that is not ‘open to life’,

(A) That is not the definition of masterbation.

(B) Every act of intercourse using NFP is completely unaltered and objectively procreative. It is completely “open to life” as you say.

 

[1ke]

It’s not open to life if life is not possible. How it is ‘ordered’ is irrelevant.

How it is ordered is the only thing that IS relevant.

 

[Corki]

How it is ordered is the only thing that IS relevant.

Exactly! I hope Father Serpa will forgive me for quoting him but …

Context is always important.

 

[Biggie]

yes, but mutual masturbation doesn’t leave the chance (however small) that a life will be formed. Withdrawl does. As we all know, it is a bad form of birth control.

But the intention of withdrawal is the same as the intention of masturbation. Evil arises in intention, not outcomes.

 

[TMC]

But the intention of withdrawal is the same as the intention of masturbation. Evil arises in intention, not outcomes.

I agree, but then how is NFP different? NFP is more like withdrawal than mastubation is. The intent of both NFP and withdrawal is to have sex without getting pregnant. I can’t understand the “open to life” argument, I have seen dozens of posts here claiming NFP is more reliable than condoms and equally as reliable as the pill. How is that open to procreation? It is a manner of intercourse that is **specifically designed **to allow intercourse with little to no chance of pregnancy. Just like condoms, just like withdrawal, just like the pill. They are all the same.

 

[1ke]

I agree, but then how is NFP different?

NFP does not alter an act of intercourse in any way.

NFP is more like withdrawal than mastubation is.

NFP is not in any way like either of these things. It is not contraceptive. Both masterbation and withdrawing engage in a sex act that is disordered.

The intent of both NFP and withdrawal is to have sex without getting pregnant.

The intent is not relevant when the means itself is immoral.

I can’t understand the “open to life” argument,

Well, since the Church’s teaching that contraception is intrinsically disordered has nothing to do with an “open to life” argument. I know people repeatedly use this phrase, but it’s not actually relevant to what the Church teaches.

The Church teaches something very specific. It is this: Each act of intercourse that a couple engages in must be a completed, vaginal act that is not altered before, during, or after the act with an action to render it infertile. This is called an objectively procreative act.

Neither masterbation nor withdrawing meet the criteria of a completed act of vaginal intercourse. When committing either of these actions it is an alteration of the act to render it infertile.

I have seen dozens of posts here claiming NFP is more reliable than condoms and equally as reliable as the pill. How is that open to procreation?

Again, the teaching is not about being “open” to procreation. EACH ACT must be objectively procreative-- that means it is a completed act that is unaltered.

A couple using NFP can choose whether or not they want to engage in a completed act of intercourse. If they do engage, they in no way alter that act. The act is a completed act of intercourse. That is a properly ordered sex act.

A contracepting couple also chooses to engage in the act but they ALTER it in some specific way to render it infertile. This is a disordered sex act.

It is a manner of intercourse that is **specifically designed **to allow intercourse with little to no chance of pregnancy.

No. In NFP the couple makes a decision of whether or not to engage in the act of intercourse. But anytime they do, it is in no way altered.

Just like condoms, just like withdrawal, just like the pill. They are all the same.

Each of these disorders the act.

 

[Biggie]

I agree, but then how is NFP different? NFP is more like withdrawal than mastubation is. The intent of both NFP and withdrawal is to have sex without getting pregnant. I can’t understand the “open to life” argument, I have seen dozens of posts here claiming NFP is more reliable than condoms and equally as reliable as the pill. How is that open to procreation? It is a manner of intercourse that is **specifically designed **to allow intercourse with little to no chance of pregnancy. Just like condoms, just like withdrawal, just like the pill. They are all the same.

The intent of withdrawal is self gratification with a live subject, just as the intent of mutual masturbation, or as the intent of auto-eroticism is self gratification with a depicted subject.

In NFP, the difference between the reality of fertility and the anticipation of fertility is latent within the body and is undertsood to exist and accepted by both parties. The intent is full union of pleasure. Nothing in it says, “I will not accept a child from you because this is all about me.”

 

[TMC]

Well, since the Church’s teaching that contraception is intrinsically disordered has nothing to do with an “open to life” argument. I know people repeatedly use this phrase, but it’s not actually relevant to what the Church teaches.

It’s not? How else do you interpet Humanae Vitae which says in paragraph 13:

If they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and contradicts the will of the Author of life.

“Open to life” is the way I have heard the doctrine summarized by the Church many times, including from the current Pope.

The Church teaches something very specific. It is this: Each act of intercourse that a couple engages in must be a completed, vaginal act that is not altered before, during, or after the act with an action to render it infertile. This is called an objectively procreative act.

I’m not sure what “objectively procreative” means in this context - but an act that has been carefully planned, with recourse to charts and measurements backed by years of scientific study, to ensure no procreation occurs is not “objectively procreative” if the word procreative is given anything like its ordinary meaning.

 

[fix]

It’s not open to life if life is not possible.

It is open to life. The act was ordained by God to be a certain way. That conception does not happen every single time does not mean it is not open to life.

How it is ‘ordered’ is irrelevant.

No, how it is ordered is exactly what is at issue in these discussions. Every moral act should be ordered toward the good. To intentionally frustrate the marital act is not being open to life. It is exactly the opposite in fact.

 

[hannah_miriam]

I have often thought about this also. Especially, the point you make about NFP. What is the difference between that and any other kind of birth control?

 

[Biggie]

I have often thought about this also. Especially, the point you make about NFP. What is the difference between that and any other kind of birth control?

If NFP and prophylactics are the equivalent, why is there so much dissatisfaction with NFP?

I think you know the obvious difference - that NFP leaves an element of the matter of pregnancy to faith, which is to say that the couple is open to God’s will for them.

 

[mark_a]

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.

I’m going to give you an extremely un-theological observation, and I don’t mean for it to offend anyone.

Withdrawal is absolutely the exact opposite of every man’s instinct at that moment. Instinct is driving him the opposite direction of withdrawal.

Condoms and all other forms of contraception allow for the “instinctual” movement of the male without the possible benefits or consequences.

And since you brought the Catholic Church into this discussion, the Church is dutifully carrying on Jewish traditional teaching.

 

[apricot_yogurt]

And the very opposite of what the woman wants:blush:

 

[newbetx]

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.

.

Darn, I’m late to the party! Oh, well, I’m going to repeat something on another thread about oral sex anyway.

Withdrawl is a barrier method. Just as Oral Sex (nor oral stimulation) on a Man is a barrier method. In the case of oral sex, one can see the barrier if they look in the mirror. Notice how much barrier there is between Tab P and Slot V for the case of oral. While there isn’t as much barrier with withdrawl, there is a barrier of distance. So it makes no difference if it is a “natrual” barrier or a synthetic one. It’s still a barrier.

 

[FRATER_PAVLVS]

NFP is natural only because the wife’s body belongs to the husband. Try not to defend it in any other way.

Personally, I think NFP is a concession.

 

[Tinajo]

My understanding of this matches up with 1ke’s - there are many terms used, such as ‘open to life’ which describe the general attitude couples should take to planning their families.

However, the key idea I’ve gleaned from various bits of reading is that, viewed objectively, having sex does two things: allows a baby to come into being, and bonds the couple (i.e. “babies and bonding” as I’ve heard it said - by Janet Smith, I think) and since God set things up to be that way, therefore it’s wrong for a couple to actively do anything to remove one of those elements - hence any contraceptive practice is wrong (removing the possibility of babies), and using the other for sexual relief alone is also wrong (removing the possibility of true bonding).

In the context of the original post, then, withdrawal removes the possibility of babies, hence is not morally permissible.

 

[newbetx]

NFP is natural only because the wife’s body belongs to the husband. Try not to defend it in any other way.

Personally, I think NFP is a concession.

OK, I’ll bite. No! Wives are not posessions! The COUPLE must work as one on this as in many other circumstances. Simple, loving courtesy.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

That is one interpretation. Another is that he masturbated before having relations with his brother’s wife. Either way, God was not pleased.

I see this whole thread as nothing more than mental gymnastics and talking around the truth.

Which is what the OP has stated.

People are not required to have sex.

Well, married people are.

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

So…if the husband doesn’t have an orgasm, it’s a disordered act? If yes, then if the husband’s tired or just…well…let’s say is unable to complete the act, he’s sinning?

Withdrawl is a barrier method. Just as Oral Sex (nor oral stimulation) on a Man is a barrier method. In the case of oral sex, one can see the barrier if they look in the mirror. Notice how much barrier there is between Tab P and Slot V for the case of oral. While there isn’t as much barrier with withdrawl, there is a barrier of distance. So it makes no difference if it is a “natrual” barrier or a synthetic one. It’s still a barrier.

Interesting, but isn’t then NFP a “barrier of time”?

I’m not arguing for withdrawl, just mentally exercising along with the OP. That’s how we all become better apologists.