Poll on contraception

[Pup7]

Sometime, when you want to avoid pregnancy the most (such as breastfeeding and perimenooause), the fertility signs are more confusing and avoiding pregnancy can involve considerably more than 7 days of abstinence.

Yes, I’m aware of that. The post wasn’t meant to be exhaustive. Good heavens.

 

[lonegreywolf20]

The thing is, a woman can be on the pill from the time she is twenty till she is done conceiving to regulate her periods.

My girlfriend, while we’re not having sex, is still on the pill and has been since the birth of her son eleven years ago because her periods are very irregular and she can “bleed” up to weeks at a time stopping for a day or two and starting again.

So, her usage for the pill is medical, not contraceptive.

 

[gcshapero]

The Church’s position against contraception has multiple layers – Humanae Vitae covered much of it and predicted what would happen with the increase of it; rampant divorces and broken families, more abortions, and constant debauchery in the culture.

 

[Vonsalza]

The Church’s position against contraception has multiple layers – Humanae Vitae covered much of it and predicted what would happen with the increase of it; rampant divorces and broken families, more abortions, and constant debauchery in the culture.

BC didn’t cause the uptick in divorces (and thus broken families) nor did it cause more abortions.

For starters, BC prevents conception so its easily argued that it prevents abortions - unless of course you espouse the completely unsubstantiated, circumstantial view that the pill, itself, is an abortifacient.

And BC didn’t directly cause broken families. The liberation of the woman juxtaposed with perennially abusive husbands did. The modern woman simply won’t take the same amount of crap from her husband as women 100 years ago.

 

[QContinuum]

I guess what makes the most sense to me is that all our bodily appetites have to learn some form of temperance. We can’t have unrestricted food, drink, sleep, sex, or any pleasure. How that challenges us will vary greatly by individual. And that doesn’t mean those things are bad - in fact, they’re all very good, but none of us are going to get holier thinking we deserve our pet desire with absolutely zero restrictions.

I agree with all of this. What’s more, I am not against contraception as a rule, so I’m not criticizing your use of NFP.

I’m pointing out that the posited idea that intent is what changes a thing from neutral to good or evil may be logically consistent with Pup’s categorization of NFP as a form of contraception.

Temperance is good, but if the - pardon the pun - desire for it stems from a purpose to prevent conception, that is the same purpose driving the popping of the Pill.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Yes although the pill and NFP are not the same, I get your point. It is my understanding that if a couple were to intend before they get married to use NFP to avoid conception for their whole marriage, that marriage would be invalid. Am I right in saying this? The intent would be not to have kids which would be an I tention that would not make a marriage valid.

 

[gcshapero]

Much of the concerns you mentioned that brought about these problems were bi-products of contraception. Contraception supports the women’s lib and the sexual revolution. 1930 was a landmark year for this since it was the first time a major church group (the Anglicans) gave contraception a “church blessing.”

 

[gcshapero]

I’m with you. NFP can be abused as a contraceptive, but you are absolutely right that it is not the same. It is like comparing someone who diets in a healthy way vs. someone who binges and purges. Not a great analogy, but a simple one.

 

[QContinuum]

That is my understanding as well.

 

[pensmama87]

Intent matters, but so does means.

 

[Vonsalza]

…that is committing a contraceptive act-- an intrinsic evil…

I don’t think this is right.

As I understand it, the Catholic Church’s position on contraception is substantially more nuanced than that.

Deciding “We won’t have sex next week because you’re likely to get pregnant, then!” is also a contraceptive act. Which the Church allows.

 

[gcshapero]

This is not how NFP is taught and does not equal a contraceptive. This is like calling a salpingectomy an abortion. NFP is also taught to be practiced in specific circumstances and is also used to know when to conceive.

I did mentioned before that NFP CAN be used as a contraceptive is abused, but this goes against the Church’s teaching of it. The Church is very direct on the immorality of contraception.

 

[Arwing]

I don’t think this is right.

As I understand it, the Catholic Church’s position on contraception is substantially more nuanced than that.

Deciding “We won’t have sex next week because you’re likely to get pregnant, then!” is also a contraceptive act. Which the Church allows.

I won’t comment on how natural means tie into this, but I think deliberate artificial birth control is quite clearly condemned in all cases. Plus, abstaining isn’t really part of a sexual act.

Humanae vitae 14

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means.

And in the Catechism is condemned “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil” (CCC 2370).

 

[Vonsalza]

This is not how NFP is taught and does not equal a contraceptive.

As Oxford defines the term, yes it absolutely does.

But at this point your attachment to the idea is emotional rather than rational, so rhetoric will do no good here.

The Church is very direct on the immorality of contraception.

With respect, that’s difficult to say with such a loaded word that seems so obviously difficult to clearly define.

But suit yourself.

 

[gcshapero]

Not at all, I’m speaking objectively on this and rationally as it was presented through encyclicals and writings from the Church.

I don’t mean this facetiously, but have you read Humanae Vitae as an example?

 

[Vonsalza]

And in the Catechism is condemned “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences” (CCC 2370).

And the decision to abstain from sex due to increase probability of conception doesn’t count as one of these prohibited actions?

This is fine if you think so. But lots of folks (and lots of Catholics) turn up an eyebrow at the statement.

 

[Arwing]

It doesn’t say that you must constantly be procreating, it says that an actual sexual act must be ordered toward procreation.

That at least rules out artificial birth control.

 

[guanophore]

Note: contraceptives refer to hormones/pills/devices used for the purpose of combatting conception. Hormones/pills/devices which are commonly used as contracpetives but are actually being used in a medical way, such as the pill to treat endometriosis, are not immoral (although we should look for better solutions if possible; especially if the woman is married and sexually active).

To prevent misunderstandings, it is better not to refer to medical treatments as using “contraceptives”. The goal in such cases is not to contracept, so it dispels confusion to refer to it as hormone treatment. Since terms like “the pill” are most often understood to refer to contraception, referring to it as hormonal therapy is better.

 

[babochka]

It doesn’t say that you must constantly be procreating, it says that an actual sexual act must be ordered toward procreation.

This.

This is the teaching of the Church. It is kind of beside the point to argue whether or not abstinence constitutes birth control. Of course it does, if you are abstaining for the purpose of not having a child. Or even if you are abstaining for other reasons, it still has the same affect. But the teaching of The Church involves the act, that it must be ordered toward procreation. The decision to not act is clearly and unambiguously allowed by the Church.

 

[QContinuum]

The Church is very direct on the immorality of contraception.

Which act, I am told, is determined by intent. So if the intent to prevent pregnancy is what turns a pill containing estrogen and progesterone (two naturally occurring hormones) into a contraceptive, how does it not follow that the same intent to avoid pregnancy turns calculated abstinence into a form of contraception as well?

If NFP is considered immune to the effects of purpose and intent simply because singular acts are unimpeded, that is an arbitrary and relativistic distinction.

The pill does not impede acts either. Taking it provides the body with a steady stream of estrogen and progesterone, which suppresses the body’s own production of certain hormones from the pituitary gland. Without FSH, the ovaries will not be stimulated to develop new follicles into eggs. Without a drop in estrogen, no egg will be released (ovulation).

Similarly, without the rise and drop in estrogen, the uterus will not develop a thick endometrial lining. It is important to note here: I often read about how the Pill “thins the lining” and “makes it hostile to the embryo.”

This denotes a profound misunderstanding of the menstrual cycle. The pill does not “thin” the lining. It prevents the uterine walls from developing endometrial lining to start with, as a result of the same action that prevents ovulation.

Normally, the luteal phase of a woman’s cycle is when the endometrial lining is shed. Please note, any hypothetical embryos in the neighborhood will find her uterus “hostile” to implantation. No lining = poor implantation conditions.

This is a normal, natural occurance. The pill works by using the very same hormones already at work in the body to lock her cycle into a pre-follicular phase.

It does not use barriers. It puts her cycle into neutral gear, and holds it there indefinitely.

Now, I keep reading and hearing about how the pill prevents “sharing everything” with your spouse, as if the Pill is sitting in bottom of the uterus shooting down incoming sperm like a demented version of Spaced Invaders.

The truth is, Pill users are doing the same thing NFP users do - taking advantage of the non-fertile phase of a woman’s cycle. One group does it by (name removed by moderator)utting hormones into the system to lock her into the infertile phase of her cycle. The other by taking careful note of system output - data from cervical mucous, temperature readings, etc. to specifically time intercourse to…take place again when a woman is infertile.

Now, someone will breathlessly tell me how NFP is still different because the pill is still an active outside agent working on the reproductive system to render it inert.

I would say all the charting, classes, temp readings, mucous sampling, etc. are actions taken to directly render the sexual act infertile as well.

It’s just taking the end run approach.

Same intent though.