Playing devil's advocate: withdrawal is natural birth control

[thomfra]

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.

Very good point duskyjewel.

 

[thomfra]

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.

Your point, in a way, is that as long as you leave a chance that the missus can get pregnant… lets say due to “an act of god” then it should be ok…is this what you are saying?

 

[thomfra]

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.

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.

 

[1ke]

So why is it that, even with this possibility still there, this method does not gain the Church’s approval?

The Church’s teaching regarding contraception has absolutely nothing to do with there being a “possibility” of conception.

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.

This is where you error.

What the Church actually teaches regarding intercourse is that every act of intercourse must be an unaltered act of completed intercourse. It must be both unitive and procreative each time it is engaged in.

Withdrawing is **not **a completed act. It is not procreative. It is a contracepted act-- defined in Humanae Vitae as an action taken before, during, or after intercourse to render the act infertile.

When a couple uses NFP, they determine when to engage in the act. But, every act that the couple do engage in is complete and unaltered.

WHY withdrawal is not considered natural birth control.

The Church does not have any teaching that birth control must be ‘natural’. That is not at all the foundation of the Church’s teaching on sexual intimacy in marriage. Again, the teaching is solely focused on the act of intercourse and that it must be completed vaginal intercourse that is unaltered.

The Church only has a teaching that contracepted acts are intrinsically immoral. The way in which one contracepts is not relevant.

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?

The Scriptural references to Onan certainly demonstrate withdrawing is contraceptive and displeasing to God. The Church does not teach “sacredness of sperm” concept. I’m not sure where you got that.

Again, the Church teaching is based on which types of sex acts are properly ordered to their natural end and which aren’t.

 

[thomfra]

The Church’s teaching regarding contraception has absolutely nothing to do with there being a “possibility” of conception.

This is where you error.

What the Church actually teaches regarding intercourse is that every act of intercourse must be an unaltered act of completed intercourse. It must be both unitive and procreative each time it is engaged in.

Withdrawing is **not **a completed act. It is not procreative. It is a contracepted act-- defined in Humanae Vitae as an action taken before, during, or after intercourse to render the act infertile.

When a couple uses NFP, they determine when to engage in the act. But, every act that the couple do engage in is complete and unaltered.

Ok… that’s a much better description. Now I can actually see where the RCC is coming from (even though I don’t agree with it).

 

[mlchance]

Emphases added:

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.

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.

Couldn’t help but notice your equivocation by comparing two different aims as if they’re the same.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[cam100]

One problem here is that you have a mistake in one of the assumptions that form the basis for your argument:

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.

The part I bolded is incorrect. The reason NFP is allowed is NOT because there is a small chance of conceiving a child. That is a common misconception. If you look at it that way, there is a small chance of conception with the pill, too. However, the real reason why NFP is allowed is simply because it violates no law of God with regard to procreation. God does not tell married people how often or when to engage in intercourse. We are free to do or not do it during both fertile and infertile periods. With NFP, the marriage act is not frustrated. It is still the marriage act, whether the women is in a fertile or an infertile period.

The only caveat is that we can’t plan to use marriage solely for our own pleasure with the exclusion of children. In other words, married people must at least try to have children at some point, if possible. However, God does not mandate a certain number of children.

 

[GratefulDad]

Duskey, 1ke and Folks,

This is one of the more recent articles from NCR regarding God’s Total Love vs a fragmented attempt at love. I’m sure you guys saw it too.

ncregister.com/site/article/15447

Paul VI vs. Playboy

BY: Donald DeMarco

July 20-26, 2008 Issue | Posted 7/15/08 at 11:27 AM

In 1986, Brother Don Fleischhacker of Notre Dame University wrote a letter to Playboy protesting that magazine’s fragmented view of human sexuality.

Citing Humanae Vitae, this intrepid Holy Cross religious reasoned that once “the contraceptive mentality is accepted, there can be no coherent objective ground for opposition to homosexual activity.” If the unitive aspect of sex becomes an end in itself, he went on to explain, “There is no essential reason why sex should be restricted to couples of different sexes.”

Recent events have proven that Brother Don was as prophetic as was Pope Paul VI when he penned Humane Vitae back in 1968. For Playboy, however, the letter was treated as an object of ridicule and its content irreverently dismissed: “Brother, you sound like St. Thomas’ lawyer,” wrote the Playboy editor, who went on to bless “both kinds” of sexual relations.

This holier-than-thou posture of Playboy explains why its founder, Hugh Hefner, has declared that he is the most moral human being he has ever met. From the perspective of Playboy, it is far ahead of the Church in the sheer number of wonderful things it deems good, including marriage for same-sex partners. Playboy has surpassed Genesis in its generosity, and out-distanced Mother Church in its magnanimity.

Why is the Church apparently so stingy in its blessings, so confused about good and evil? And how did Hefner get to be so much wiser and more beneficent than anyone in the long Judeo-Christian tradition?

Two problems here warrant attention. One is the difficulty in recognizing evil. The second is the assumption that more is better.

The main problem in identifying the essence of evil is precisely that it does not have an essence, anything solid or substantial that would reveal its malefic nature to an empirical examiner. Hence, evil is not an object at which anyone can point. Evil lies in what is missing.

In order to know what is missing, one must first know what should be there in the first place. Ten football players on the field may look perfectly fine to the casual observer, but to the referee, it constitutes an infraction that warrants a penalty. There is nothing wrong with any of the 10 men on the field. It is the one who is missing that creates the problem.

The realistic basis of Humanae Vitae is what Paul VI refers to as a “total” or “integral vision of man.” Two people who are having sex with each other apart from marriage may believe that they are behaving very morally. But if they have willfully excluded love, any concern for conception or any responsibility for their consequences, their act might have on themselves and others, it becomes clear that what they are doing is deprived of the very factors that are needed to realize this “total vision” of the human being. Moral good does not exist in isolation.

The God of Genesis, after proclaiming that everything he created is good, declared that, “It is not good for man to be alone.” The reason it is “not good for man to be alone,” is that he cannot be good unless he has love for other human beings. Man’s nature demands a communal existence. Hell is where man is truly and finally alone, deprived of love, hope, and happiness.

For the same reason, it is not good for sex to be alone.

The key to moral goodness is that it not be isolated from the factors that give it its wholeness and therefore its total good. Moral goods are always organic. Moral evils are always deprived.

The second problem is associated with the assumption that restricting sex to married couples deprives others of meaningful sexual experiences. Or, in the words of a popular comedian, “Restricting sex to one married spouse is like buying a cable package that provides just one channel.”

Humanae Vitae urges a certain “asceticism” in order to “dominate instinct by means of one’s reason and free will.” Sex must pass from instinct to institution so that it can conform to the “total vision of man.”

Pope Benedict XVI, in his 2002 work, On the Way to Jesus Christ, draws important insights from a passage in the Book of Amos, where the eponymous prophet refers to himself as, “a dresser of sycamore trees.”

Citing a number of scholars, the Holy Father explains that the abundant fruit of the sycamore tree is tasteless until it is cut to let the sap run out, whereby it becomes flavorful. This image can be taken to symbolize the transition from the pagan world of excess to the Christian world of purification and moderation.

The Holy Father writes: “Ultimately only the Logos himself can guide our cultures to their purity and maturity, but the Logos makes us his servants, the ‘dresser of sycamore trees.’”

The application to human sexuality here is easy enough to see. Because Hefner and his playboys see all forms of sex in the flat perspective of equality, they see no one particular form of sex in its sublimity. They promote the tasteless fruit of unseasoned, indiscriminate sex, while criticizing those who understand something about its purity and passion.

Humanae Vitae reminds us that our true destiny is to be whole persons, and that we must discipline ourselves in order to reach that end.

The humanitarian claims of Hefner are bogus since they are based neither on a proper understanding of the human person nor on a recognition of the practical necessity for virtue.

Donald DeMarco is adjunct professor at

Holy Apostles College and Seminary in

Cromwell, Connecticut.

 

[Corki]

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.

There is a flaw in the comparison to start with. While both practices “aim” to avoid the meeting of egg and sperm, in NFP this is accomplished by forgoing immediate pleasure and gratification while withdrawl is accomplished** in order to have **the instant gratification.

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

That is exactly what I intended it to be! I explicitly stated that!

Good, I need the exercise.

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.

This doesn’t prove that withdwawl is natural. It only reinforces the Church’s position that husband and wife give themselves to each other unless there is a just reason. An analogy might be eating. It is perfectly natural to have a strong urge to eat certain foods but that doesn’t make it wrong to resist the urge for any number of good reasons (weight control, just before Communion, health reason, mortification, personal sacrifice, don’t want to spoil my dinner, etc.).

NFP isn’t about how the act is accomplished. As stated above, each act must be unitive and procreative. But we don’t have sex all the time, no act is not a sinful act.

Withdrawl, on the other hand is part of the act, it interrupts the act and it makes the act itself incomplete. It is a direct act by the couple on the sex act.

 

[Guldenat]

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.

If this is the case then NFP is mutual masturbation.

 

[fix]

If this is the case then NFP is mutual masturbation.

How so? With NFP the act is unaltered in any way.

 

[Carjack1]

Hi Dusky:wave:

Can I have a stab at this? I think that the purpose of sperm is to travel inside the woman’s body and not outside of it. So sperm travelling outside of the body will die, which is against natural law.(The sperm is wasted) The act of intercourse is not complete and unnatural at the same time when withdrawal occurs. This is my humble theory anyway

 

[duskyjewel]

The Church does not teach “sacredness of sperm” concept. I’m not sure where you got that.

Gosh, can’t even tell a joke on this board. Please tell me someone got the Monty Python reference? “Every Sperm is Sacred” is a song that makes fun of Catholics in the movie The Meaning of Life. (Don’t worry, they get in some pretty funny swipes at Protestants, too. )

Anyway, my thanks to everyone who indulged my mental exercise and helped me along with it. This really was something that I didn’t exactly understand, and you did help me understand it better. And to the person who pointed out my logical error of equivocation, thank you too. I point out flaws in logic all the time, so I can only expect to be run through with my own sword when I deserve it!

ETA: link to the scene in the movie that contains the song
youtube.com/watch?v=47P59ha9k9s Warning: brief obscene language, rude name for male body part

 

[Guldenat]

How so? With NFP the act is unaltered in any way.

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.

 

[fix]

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.

But, I cannot see your point? NFP is open to life. The act is not frustrated. One may not conceive but the act is open to life and ordered correctly.

 

[duskyjewel]

This is a better link for the song:
youtube.com/watch?v=uNgotUM4gk8

The other one has a major editing error… they put a whole segment in the middle out of order and then repeat it later… very confusing. So look at this one. And again, the warning, there is brief obscene language in this…

 

[Guldenat]

But, I cannot see your point? NFP is open to life. The act is not frustrated. One may not conceive but the act is open to life and ordered correctly.

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

 

[Carjack1]

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

It is not likely, but it is possible. With God all things are possible. When taking artificial methods, it makes God’s plan impossible. That is the difference. Being open means their are no artificial barriers(norplant, pill, condoms, sponge, foam, spermicides, patch) to get in God’s way if He should desire to bless a couple with His Gift. When withdrawal is done, the act isn’t complete, but disordered(which is relevant).

 

[gardenswithkids]

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

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… 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?..

Now you have that song running through my head too. (Go away unwanted song in my head.)

You want something beyond Genesis telling us its abhorant in the sight of God and worthy of death? Consider the story from Tamara’s perspective. She wanted a baby.

I have encountered many females friends who want another child when their husbands don’t. The idea that every couple has to agree fully with each and every conception is nonsence. Giving guys the “okay” to pull out in the last moments would leave many women feeling used and disposed of when what they want is a baby. The act of pulling out screams “Stop! I don’t want to be here anymore!”

 

[Guldenat]

Carjack:

It is not likely, but it is possible. With God all things are possible. When taking artificial methods, it makes God’s plan impossible. That is the difference. Being open means their are no artificial barriers(norplant, pill, condoms, sponge, foam, spermicides, patch) to get in God’s way if He should desire to bless a couple with His Gift. When withdrawal is done, the act isn’t complete, but disordered(which is relevant).

Fair enough.