Poll on contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter gcshapero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am sure that somehow somebody someday will come up with an individual case where via the principle of double effect contraception would be acceptable but that would be the very very tiny exception.
 
goout said:
And NFP is not contra-ception.
Click to expand...
Some Catholics just don’t want it to be contraception.

But as the word is defined, NFP’s aim is to frustrate conception.

That, in a word, is “contraception”.
 
Last edited:
Of course it is. But the water itself isn’t morally good or bad, it’s just physically bad for humans to drink, and morally bad if intent or negligence or some other culpable human action results in people drinking it.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Catholics just don’t want it to be contraception.

But as the word is defined, NFP’s aim is to frustrate conception.

That, in a word, is “contraception”.
Click to expand...
Some don’t.

I have no idea how the word is so loaded, or how my using it properly is a Catholic issue. I am Catholic. I’m also a medical professional.

“It’s not contraception, it’s making sure you don’t get pregnant. It’s not having sex when she might get pregnant. It’s not birth control, though.”
 
Last edited:
goout said:
No, it’s not. Definitively you are wrong.
Definitively.
Read please.
Click to expand...
From Oxford:
contraception - The deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

For rational people, this is the end of the discussion. NFP is contraception. Period.
 
Pup7 said:
40.png
goout:
Contra-ception is an act that can be morally evaluated, not a morally neutral substance.

Birth control does not necessarily involve contra-ception.

And NFP is not contra-ception.
Click to expand...
What? Contraception is the avoidance of pregnancy. Contraception in and of itself is morally neutral. How you choose to do it may not be. Birth control is anything used to avoid pregnancy.

From womenshealth.gov:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Click to expand...
Is that sourced from the Vatican? USCCB perhaps?
CNA? EWTN? Catholic Culture? New Advent? CCC?

No, it’s not,.
 
Vonsalza said:
40.png
goout:
And NFP is not contra-ception.
Click to expand...
Catholics just don’t want it to be contraception.

But as the word is defined, NFP’s aim is to frustrate conception.

That, in a word, is “contraception”.
Click to expand...
As there is no sex when people are not having sex, there is no perversion of the sexual act involved.
 
And I am done here.
If you are going to misrepresent Catholic perspectives, that is your responsibility.
Have it.
 
You know, I’ve scoured all those sources looking for one place where it says it isn’t that, and I can’t find it in print anywhere.

I’m sure the Archbishop uses a dictionary.
goout said:
If you are going to misrepresent Catholic perspectives, that is your responsibility.
Click to expand...
But it isn’t, because nowhere does the Church redefine it - that I can find.
 
Last edited:
Contraception means an act deliberately intended to frustrate conception. A non-action (i.e. abstaining) doesn’t frustrate anything because you haven’t done anything. Yes, this is not how the term is commonly used in secular circles, where ends and not means are what counts.

And I’m going to try hard to stay out of it now because it’s just going to make me mad.
 
pensmama87 said:
A non-action (i.e. abstaining) doesn’t frustrate anything because you haven’t done anything
Click to expand...
You have used physiology to avoid sex. You have done a lot more than someone who uses a physical or chemical barrier, actually. Having done it to try and conceive (which is just doing the deed that week over not - and usually abstaining for the week before AND the week after), I am well aware of how it works.

This isn’t intended to make anyone mad in the least. But when you go to a physician or RN or NP or PA and talk about NFP, they are going to use the term.
 
Last edited:
I’m not saying you don’t understand the science.

The flip side of this is saying that couples have some obligation from outside to engage in relations. They don’t. They mutually decide based on a number of factors. Fertility may or may not be a factor.
 
That’s a given. I’m not sure how that relates to any of this, though. That to me is a whole other conversation.

But it’s super early here and I’ve only had one cup of coffee.
 
So how often do my husband and I have to have sex to not be frustrating conception? Do I have to have sex during Phase 2 even if I don’t feel like it?
 
Who said that? I’m confused.

Planning to avoid sex during your fertile period assuredly frustrates conception. You can only get pregnant in that 72 hour window (that is actually about a week, since sperm live more than 24 hours). If you avoid sex, you’re unlikely to become pregnant if you have that time nailed down.

We’re not making fun of you or criticizing you in the least - don’t think that.
 
Last edited:
The moral issue is the use of a faculty while at the same time acting contrary to its ends. If a faculty is not being used it’s not being used contrary to its ends. Furthermore, there’s no moral obligation to have sex during fertile or non-fertile periods or to only have sex to maximize the possibility of children, so having sex in both phases or either or not at all is not in itself a moral issue or the use of a faculty contrary to its ends.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top