Protestants: defend your use of artificial contraception

[Calliso]

I don’t want to get too in-your-face about this, but you appear to have encountered different children in your life than I have! To dial it back a few notches, though: not everyone likes children. Not everyone is going to like children. Many of these same people, though, are married, love each other wholeheartedly, and don’t quite see the connection between their love and the love of a third party who drives them seethingly insane as a species, and who does a good impersonation of a punishment, whether or not it’s the case.

Loving one’s spouse and rearing a child are like baseball and tropical fish, or whittling and chartered accounting–they’re WHOLLY distinct affections/skill sets. A person may have a love/aptitude for both, but not necessarily–the traits don’t correlate very well, if at all. One may love A while detesting B. Treating them as an inseparable package continues to strike me as bizarre.

Yep exactly, they are two very different things and donlt necessarily go together. Otherwise you would not have any childfree married couples. I use childfree here to describe someone who does not want children that is different from using the term childless which often refers to someone who wants but is unable to have children But yeah to some of us having kids would be like a punishment. That doesn;t mean that as a whole we view children as a punishment or a disease I mean I realize that many people love kids and I say good for them! But some of us just donlt like them. Or we like them just as long as we can send them home/go home without them ourselves when the day is over lol! *I think that is a big reason so many Grandmas and Grandpas love being Grandmas and Grandpas…cause you get to have fun with the grandchildren spoil them and all that but at the end of the day their parents have to deal with them lol!!!

 

[benedictus2]

“Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “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:”

Maybe I am dense. Would someone please explain to me how using a condom is an intrinsically evil method of preventing pregnancy. while using the “rhythm method” is not evil? Both means of contraceptive are “unitive” while the intent in each case is not to have sex and not to “procreate”. There is no difference in intent, only in method.

The answer to your question has been given numerous times on this thread. I suggest you go through the posts.

In short however, the rhythm method uses God’s design of the woman’s body. He Authored these cycles.

Condom and any other artificial means are precisely that - artificial.

There is a difference because one goes by God’s design another by man’s.

And no. The means are not both unitive. How can it be when with the artificial means the couple are essentially lying to each other by saying I love you with their body while withholding a major part of their person - their capacity to bring forth life through union with the other.

Here’s an excerpt from Fr Tadeusz Pacholczyk’s article - Contraception Contradictions
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0166.htm

A person does not put on gloves to touch a beloved one tenderly, unless one thinks that some disease may be communicated. But is pregnancy a disease? And is not the use of condoms, diaphragms, spermicidal jellies, and the like similar to putting on gloves? Do husband and wife really become ‘one flesh’ if they must arm themselves with protective gear before ‘giving’ themselves to one another genitally?*
*

• The problem here is clear: marital sexuality is actually all about loving someone totally and unreservedly, giving and receiving totally, and not holding back who we are for ourselves. It is a unique language of total self-giving.*
• Contraception, on the other hand, allows marital sexuality to devolve into a kind of mutual masturbation where each pursues erotic satisfaction apart from the total gift of self, and apart from any openness to life. Because of contraception, marital sexual activity slips into a subtle mode of mutual exploitation – a lifeless, self-focused, needs-centered apparatus.*

 

[benedictus2]

Yep exactly, they are two very different things and donlt necessarily go together. Otherwise you would not have any childfree married couples. I use childfree here to describe someone who does not want children that is different from using the term childless which often refers to someone who wants but is unable to have children But yeah to some of us having kids would be like a punishment.

And you call yourself a Christian when you see children as a punishment?

If you see children as punishment then that means you are a punishment. Or does that fact escape you? Perhaps the world was better rid of you since it has had enough of the punishment that is you?

That doesn;t mean that as a whole we view children as a punishment or a disease

Well hellooo, once you say that a person is allowed to view children as a punishment then you are saying that they are indeed punishment.

Just in the same manner that if you allow one paedophile the right to molest children you are sending out a blanket message that you it is okay to molest children. The kind of absurd and morally depraved justification of contraception that has been sported by some here really horrifies me!

The more I hear posts like yours and LeC, the more I realize how amazingly prophetic Pope Paul VI was.

I mean I realize that many people love kids and I say good for them!

For the umpteenth time, the question is not about liking or disliking children.

The question is whether our likes and dislikes determine what is and is not morally permissible.

As I have said before, if what we like determines what is permissible then paedophilia is acceptable because that is what some people like.

But some of us just donlt like them.

Who cares what you do and don’t like. This has nothing to do about liking or not liking something. When are you going to get understand that truth.

Somethings are just not up to us to like or dislike. Not all truths relative.

Or we like them just as long as we can send them home/go home without them ourselves when the day is over lol! *I think that is a big reason so many Grandmas and Grandpas love being Grandmas and Grandpas…cause you get to have fun with the grandchildren spoil them and all that but at the end of the day their parents have to deal with them lol!!!

And what has that got to do with anything? I can’t believe the dearth of rational thinking in this post.

Have you ever thought that perhaps the child that should have been contracepted or aborted was you? That you are the one that is undesirable in this world? So what makes you so smug that you think you can dictate that some children are undesirable.

 

[Erethorn]

Perhaps the world was better rid of you since it has had enough of the punishment that is you?

Now that is very uncharitable. Not Christian in the least.

 

[Peepers]

The answer to your question has been given numerous times on this thread. I suggest you go through the posts.

In short however, the rhythm method uses God’s design of the woman’s body. He Authored these cycles.

Condom and any other artificial means are precisely that - artificial.

There is a difference because one goes by God’s design another by man’s.

And no. The means are not both unitive. How can it be when with the artificial means the couple are essentially lying to each other by saying I love you with their body while withholding a major part of their person - their capacity to bring forth life through union with the other.

Here’s an excerpt from Fr Tadeusz Pacholczyk’s article - Contraception Contradictions
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0166.htm

A person does not put on gloves to touch a beloved one tenderly, unless one thinks that some disease may be communicated. But is pregnancy a disease? And is not the use of condoms, diaphragms, spermicidal jellies, and the like similar to putting on gloves? Do husband and wife really become ‘one flesh’ if they must arm themselves with protective gear before ‘giving’ themselves to one another genitally?*
*

• The problem here is clear: marital sexuality is actually all about loving someone totally and unreservedly, giving and receiving totally, and not holding back who we are for ourselves. It is a unique language of total self-giving.*
• Contraception, on the other hand, allows marital sexuality to devolve into a kind of mutual masturbation where each pursues erotic satisfaction apart from the total gift of self, and apart from any openness to life. Because of contraception, marital sexual activity slips into a subtle mode of mutual exploitation – a lifeless, self-focused, needs-centered apparatus.*

Thanks for taking the time to clarify that.

 

[Calliso]

And you call yourself a Christian when you see children as a punishment?

If you see children as punishment then that means you are a punishment. Or does that fact escape you? Perhaps the world was better rid of you since it has had enough of the punishment that is you?

Well hellooo, once you say that a person is allowed to view children as a punishment then you are saying that they are indeed punishment.

Just in the same manner that if you allow one paedophile the right to molest children you are sending out a blanket message that you it is okay to molest children. The kind of absurd and morally depraved justification of contraception that has been sported by some here really horrifies me!

The more I hear posts like yours and LeC, the more I realize how amazingly prophetic Pope Paul VI was.

For the umpteenth time, the question is not about liking or disliking children.

The question is whether our likes and dislikes determine what is and is not morally permissible.

As I have said before, if what we like determines what is permissible then paedophilia is acceptable because that is what some people like.

Who cares what you do and don’t like. This has nothing to do about liking or not liking something. When are you going to get understand that truth.

Somethings are just not up to us to like or dislike. Not all truths relative.

And what has that got to do with anything? I can’t believe the dearth of rational thinking in this post.

Have you ever thought that perhaps the child that should have been contracepted or aborted was you? That you are the one that is undesirable in this world? So what makes you so smug that you think you can dictate that some children are undesirable.

I donlt see children as a whole as a punishment. I mean that would be silly. Cause then I would be assuming that for everyone children are a punishment. And clearly that isn;t the case. Here perhaps using the word punishment is not good terminology. I mean if I had the misfortune to get pregnant would I literally think that God personally decided to let me get pregnant as a punishment? No of course not. Lets use some different terminology since punishment is clearly not the right one. Lets instead say that for me and others having kids would be very unrewarding something we would not eagerly wlcome. While for others having kids is very rewarding like getting just what you wanted for your birthday or whatever. I would only be a punishment to my parents if they viewed me as a punishment. . My parents however wanted me very much so clearly to them I was a positive thing. However as much as I donlt want any of my own in general as a whole I see children as over all a positive thing just not for me personally.

I was just being silly with the Grandma and Grandpa thing. I thought I made that really clear with the lol and all that. I thought maybe the person I was responding too might get my humor.

As for the idea of my parents contracepting and me not existing. Why would I care if they did? I mean really tink about that. If I hadn;t been born I would have never existed beyond maybe a zygote of a handful of cells at best.

I donlt see how using contraception especially things like condoms were there is no risk of a fertilized egg not being implanted is morally depraved. I mean if we were all saying anything goes and if you get pregnant just run to the abortion clinic if you donlt want the thing. Yeah that would be kinda messed up. But none are saying that at least not that I have seen.

I donlt think our likes and dislikes determine what is morally permissable. I just haven;t been truly convinced that using contraception in marriage to prevent children is sinful. I mean there is a huge difference between pedaphila and using contraception. Just as there is a HUGE difference between me lets saying taking the pill or getting my tubes tied to hopefully prevent children and having a kid and deciding I donlt want this kid or this kids and or my life sucks then deciding to kill the kid.

 

[mark_a]

. I just haven;t been truly convinced that using contraception in marriage to prevent children is sinful. I mean there is a huge difference between pedaphila and using contraception. Just as there is a HUGE difference between me lets saying taking the pill or getting my tubes tied to hopefully prevent children and having a kid and deciding I donlt want this kid or this kids and or my life sucks then deciding to kill the kid.

I once thought like you. I would never in a million years have thought I would be truly 100% Catholic pro-life (there is a difference between pro-life and Catholic pro-life).

I’d be careful about hanging out on this forum.

 

[fred_conty]

And actually the gross suffering we see on this planet is the karma of those people. I just have a hard time dealing with all the suffering. I don’t celebrate the suffering of others the way I see some Roman Catholics do.

What suffering are you referring to? Would you please explain this in a more specific way so that it may be addressed? Thank you.

 

[samiam1611]

The problem here is clear: marital sexuality is actually all about loving someone totally and unreservedly, giving and receiving totally, and not holding back who we are for ourselves. It is a unique language of total self-giving.
Contraception, on the other hand, allows marital sexuality to devolve into a kind of mutual masturbation where each pursues erotic satisfaction apart from the total gift of self, and apart from any openness to life. Because of contraception, marital sexual activity slips into a subtle mode of mutual exploitation – a lifeless, self-focused, needs-centered apparatus.

Total self giving…unreserved…fully loving…

So we all know that NFP is not 100% effective…you can misjudge when you’re ovulating, etc. … what about the couple who knows it could fail but has sex anyway but hopes hopes hopes, prays prays prays, that she will not get pregnant. They make eye contact…they consider for a fleeting second withdrawl…they look to the heavens…they plead to God, don’t let this result in conception. pplllleeeease God. He finishes, they lay there, their minds overcome with worry and apprehension.

How is that a total giving of self? If their minds are distracted by the dread of pregnancy, they’re not giving themselves fully. It’s not an unreserved expression of love, not a total self giving. (They won’t abort if she gets pregnant, so you can’t say that couple with that mindset is “not open to life.”) You are so adament about this whole “it’s a lie,” “they’re lying” thing. But the marital act as experienced by a fertile couple who does not want children at this time without the freedom* that contraception brings is inferior to the intensity and trueness of love that a contraceptive-using couple can experience.
*(by significantly reducing the likelihood of this unwanted consequence)

It seems like Catholicism actually places more value on the procreative aspect of the marital act than on the unitive aspect. Like openess to life is more important than what’s good for the spouses or their marriage. More. Not equal. As if more kids is what the world needs. As if welcoming conception is more important than love between a husband and wife. As if creating life is more important than what’s good for two existing ones. (especially if the woman’s health would be at stake if she got pregnant)

In my opinion, the Church’s condemnation of the marital act that is not open to life is flawed.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thread over 1000 posts.
Closed