Poll on contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter gcshapero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks, only time will tell, he has been very helpful to me personally.
 
Pup7 said:
40.png
goout:
40.png
QContinuum:
I’m not Catholic, so did not want to invalidate your poll responses.

In any case, my preferred answer is not included:

“Contraception is, itself, a neutral thing. Whether it is used morally or not, depends on the context.”
Click to expand...
And this is the source of endless confusion.
Contra-ception is never morally neutral.

Everyone…
substances are morally neutral.
Acts can be morally evaluated.

Contra-ception is an act, not a substance.
Click to expand...
I’d be careful with that - as NFP is a form of contraception.

(There’s no hyphen, by the way.)
Click to expand...
NFP is not contra-ception. Contra-ception is an act that frustrates conception.
An act that disorders the fertility of the sex act.
Having sex acts where conception is frustrated.

And this illustrates why I intentionally hyphenated the word. I know it has no hyphen, but it serves to clarify the meaning of the word
 
Last edited:
“Ception” isn’t a word, though. And that’s not what it means.

NFP is a form of contraception no matter how you paint it. It’s just not a barrier or chemical one.
 
Pup7 said:
“Ception” isn’t a word, though. And that’s not what it means.

NFP is a form of contraception no matter how you paint it. It’s just not a barrier or chemical one.
Click to expand...
Geez.
thanks for the spelling lesson.

The reason I hyphenated is so that people who do not understand the word can more fully understand it.

Again. NFP is not contraception.
Look it up.
 
Okay. 🙂

Hmm…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

It is contraception - natural contraception. It’s a form of birth control. I’ve taught it as an RN, and it is indeed a form of contraception. It’s not a hideous term.

From Merriam-Webster:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Under what circumstances would this be permitted? If it closes the sexual act to the possibility of life (even if this is not the prime motive) then should the course of action not be to refrain from sex?

Perhaps if the couple are infertile or past childbearing age, then contraceptives could be used for other reasons as in these circumstances they no longer carry out any contraceptive function.

Perhaps if someone was at rosk of being raped with a high chance of being infected with disease and the motivation was protection from disease, but this seems a dubious scenario as a rapist is unlikely to agree to wear a condom at the request of his victim.
 
Last edited:
  1. That’s a secular source. Consult a Catholic source like USCCB please.
  2. Birth control and contra-ception are not necessarily the same thing either.
 
Oh please. Grasping at straws is beneath you. I’m sure the Archbishop uses a dictionary.

Birth control and contraception are very much the same thing, and the terms are used interchangeably.
 
Last edited:
I think there is a difference in the way the Church uses the words.
 
That is likely true - but the words are interchangeable in the way I am using them here.
 
It won’t, but I’m not surprised at the compulsion to snark in a last word.
 
Pup7 said:
Birth control and contraception are very much the same thing, and the terms are used interchangeably.
Click to expand...
yep, I agree. NFP is definitely birth control…after all, what else are people trying to do other than control when they have a birth?
 
goout said:
NFP is not contra-ception. Contra-ception is an act that frustrates conception.
Click to expand...
I think you want a verb then, “contra-cepting” seems to be what you are looking for.

Then perhaps the next ambiguity you need to solve would be: in what does the “frustration” lie…the intent of the actors or a mere medical description of the bodily behaviour and consequences? Or somehow both.

It seems fairly clear to me that NFP’ers intend to have sex without getting pregnant even if, at a purely medical level, there is no detectable intervention re the consequences of a coitus suitable for generation.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
A chemical that is poisonous is not morally evil or morally good.
Click to expand...
If the drinking water supply is contaminated with a poisonous chemical that has the effect of killing anyone who drinks the water, that is a very bad thing.
 
Angel_Gabriel said:
yep, I agree. NFP is definitely birth control…after all, what else are people trying to do other than control when they have a birth?
Click to expand...
If you use NFP to avoid having children, the intention is to defeat the primary purpose of marriage while having sexual relations. You just don’t want to have too many kids, but you want to have sexual relations just the same.
 
So then you affirm the claim that substances are morally weighted.
Is all matter evil in your view? Did you know that laying outdoors in the sun can earn you a severe sunburn?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top