Secular argument against "permanent" NFP

[yellow8yellowM]

What would be the secular arguments against using Natural Family Planning (NFP) to never have children (assuming there was no just cause)?

I ask this specific question because I do not want this thread to deteriorate into the health effects of artificial birth control, etc. I truly believe that all contraception arguments, if they have to made to a secular audience, will boil down to this question.

I am very excited to see your responses.

 

[Giants]

What would be the secular arguments against using Natural Family Planning (NFP) to never have children (assuming there was no just cause)?

I ask this specific question because I do not want this thread to deteriorate into the health effects of artificial birth control, etc. I truly believe that all contraception arguments, if they have to made to a secular audience, will boil down to this question.

I am very excited to see your responses.

I doubt that a proper secularist would have an argument against it.

 

[Pug]

So you are positing a person engaging in a behavior without rational, principled basis? It is possible that someone might object on those grounds alone. Particularly if in the case the behavior causes extensive harm to the partner or is unfair.

 

[Giants]

So you are positing a person engaging in a behavior without rational, principled basis? It is possible that someone might object on those grounds alone. Particularly if in the case the behavior causes extensive harm to the partner or is unfair.

Speaking for myself, I don’t think using NFP as a contraception method is either irrational, or unprincipled. It’s quite openly promoted (by Catholic organizations) as a way to either achieve or avoid pregnancy. And it has a strong scientific basis for its effectiveness.

 

[Pug]

Speaking for myself, I don’t think using NFP as a contraception method is either irrational, or unprincipled. It’s quite openly promoted (by Catholic organizations) as a way to either achieve or avoid pregnancy. And it has a strong scientific basis for its effectiveness.

Misunderstanding has happened. I will clarify.

Original poster said we were to assume the person is practicing NFP in a certain manner with no just cause. I agree with you that NFP is something that one can practice in a rational and principled manner. But that is exactly what the OP appeared to be saying was not the case he/she had in mind. Some simple meanings of just are that

1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness
2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper

So I was positing that the OP meant that the behavior in this case was without reason or without suitable reference to principle or some such.

 

[Tingo]

There are no non-religious arguments that I can think of against the use of any sort of contraception in principle.

There are non-religious arguments against the use of things which cause abortions, and non-religious arguments against particular types of contraception for example on the basis of risk or effectiveness.

I have never met a non-religious person who objected to the use of contraception in principle. I would be interested to know if there are any, and how they reason to such a position.

 

[vames]

What would be the secular arguments against using Natural Family Planning (NFP) to never have children (assuming there was no just cause)?

Insufficient efficiency (high amount of efforts and sacrifices / low reliability). If a couple is really decided to never have children, they would rather choose IUD, tubal ligation or vasectomy.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

What would be the secular arguments against using Natural Family Planning (NFP) to never have children (assuming there was no just cause)?

I ask this specific question because I do not want this thread to deteriorate into the health effects of artificial birth control, etc. I truly believe that all contraception arguments, if they have to made to a secular audience, will boil down to this question.

I am very excited to see your responses.

We, as Catholics, believe that NFP can only be used if you have a just reason to space births. Therefore, if you have no just reason, you cannot practice NFP forever. Some people may never have a legitimate reason to practice NFP.

It is easy to argue against abortion from a secular standpoint. It seems much harder to argue against artificial birth control. Most secular arguments against birth control pills,etc., are medical ones. In my opinion these are very weak arguments because a perfectly safe pill theoretically could be made and we would still be against it. In fact, a perfectly safe birth control method is available to us called NFP. But we cannot use NFP without a just cause for spacing the births.

How can we answer why practicing NFP forever without a just cause may be immoral, from a secular point of view?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

How can we answer why practicing NFP forever without a just cause may be immoral, from a secular point of view?

Ok, so you’re not asking for a morality judgement of NFP per se, but of a couple purposely deciding not to have kids – with NFP as the means so as to eliminate any objections to contraception. Right?

I don’t see any secular objections, but then again I feel very strongly about a person’s choice to take measures to prevent conception before it occurs.

I see two possible areas where you might be able to make some objections on secular grounds:

1. The need for people to continue society. Right now the baby boomers are getting older and the percentage of the population that is made up of seniors is climbing. Overall though it’s hard to focus on a statistical blip when the overall population is climbing so rapidly.
2. People not getting grandchildren. On its face it seems minor, but I know many families have had heated arguments over this very issue. I don’t feel that keeping one’s parents from becoming grandparents is immoral but I know others feel differently.

 

[Kelfa28]

We, as Catholics, believe that NFP can only be used if you have a just reason to space births. Therefore, if you have no just reason, you cannot practice NFP forever. Some people may never have a legitimate reason to practice NFP.

It is easy to argue against abortion from a secular standpoint. It seems much harder to argue against artificial birth control. Most secular arguments against birth control pills,etc., are medical ones. In my opinion these are very weak arguments because a perfectly safe pill theoretically could be made and we would still be against it. In fact, a perfectly safe birth control method is available to us called NFP. But we cannot use NFP without a just cause for spacing the births.

How can we answer why practicing NFP forever without a just cause may be immoral, from a secular point of view?

I’m going to counter this and say that I think it’s impossible for anyone to create a medication that has virtually no side effects. It doesn’t exist. I doubt it ever will.

Any kind of contraceptive device goes against what the body was designed to do. It creates an artificial environment that the body is fighting to correct. A woman’s body is constantly at war with itself while taking contraceptives. Sometimes she will ovulate, despite taking the pill or receiving the shot.

However, there is one relatively safe method of contraception. It’s called a condom. Condoms only cause allergic reactions in a small amount of people. Yet only about 4% of married couples use them regularly to prevent pregnancy.

My argument against birth control, that can be considered secular, is that is cheapens the sexual act. It turns it into a lustful act and not a unitive bond. You are telling your spouse that you “love” them but only so much to gain pleasure and not accept their fertility. Their fertility must be stopped because you can’t accept having a child with them.

It also gets rid of the practice of chastity and encourages other behavior. If a married couple is using contraception and regularly having sex whenever they want…what happens when someone gets sick, is post-partem, is away on business or deployed, is busy with the kids and can’t have sex that night. But the spouse wants sex and looks for it elsewhere. Masturbation, porn, night clubs, strip joints, affairs…it’s a slippery slope.

NFP encourages one to still be chaste within marriage and to respect your spouse and not cheapen the sexual act.

 

[Boccherini]

There are no non-religious arguments that I can think of against the use of any sort of contraception in principle.

There are non-religious arguments against the use of things which cause abortions, and non-religious arguments against particular types of contraception for example on the basis of risk or effectiveness.

I have never met a non-religious person who objected to the use of contraception in principle. I would be interested to know if there are any, and how they reason to such a position.

Of course there are non-religious arguments against contraception. First of all, contraception can lead to promiscuity, people can end up in sexual relationships too soon with unsuitable people because they feel ‘there’s no risk’ and then end up emotionally confused/hurt.

Another argument is that contraception leads to not enough children being born. Italy - ironically, a Catholic country - has a birth rate of just over 1 child per woman, which is not enough to replace the population, which will lead to big problems in the future. Contraception isn’t the only reason for this, but certainly it plays a big part.

 

[Tingo]

Of course there are non-religious arguments against contraception. First of all, contraception can lead to promiscuity, people can end up in sexual relationships too soon with unsuitable people because they feel ‘there’s no risk’ and then end up emotionally confused/hurt.

Another argument is that contraception leads to not enough children being born. Italy - ironically, a Catholic country - has a birth rate of just over 1 child per woman, which is not enough to replace the population, which will lead to big problems in the future. Contraception isn’t the only reason for this, but certainly it plays a big part.

These are not arguments against contraception ‘in itself’ as I stated. They are argumnets against promiscuity and against low birth rates.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

These are not arguments against contraception ‘in itself’ as I stated. They are argumnets against promiscuity and against low birth rates.

A psychological change in the mind occurs as a direct result of knowing that contraception is available and works. This direct psychological change is that people have the tendency to become more promiscuous and separate sex from marriage and from procreation.

You could also answer the original question in this way as well for NFP. If you practice NFP permanently so as not to ever have conceive, then you are mentally separating sex from procreation even though the physical act is still ordered such that conception is possible.

 

[gardenswithkids]

What would be the secular arguments against using Natural Family Planning (NFP) to never have children (assuming there was no just cause)?

I ask this specific question because I do not want this thread to deteriorate into the health effects of artificial birth control, etc. I truly believe that all contraception arguments, if they have to made to a secular audience, will boil down to this question.

I am very excited to see your responses.

“Assuming there was no just cause” is a huge assumption. I will make a few other huge assumptions–I assume we are speaking of husband and wife, (because otherwise the discussion is really about marital relations outside of marriage) and I’ll assume that they are chaste during the woman’s fertile times, (otherwise it becomes a discussion about those acts) and I’ll assume that they would not turn to abortion should the wife become pregnant, (because then the argument becomes about abortion.) If all of those assumptions held true, then if a husband and wife desire to use NFP to postpone pregnancy, then I would not try to argue with them at all. The nature of using NFP effectively requires the couple to practice self-sacrifice, and I would expect that they would either eventually change their minds and welcome a child/children or they would learn and achieve a heroic level of self-sacrifice for our present society.

It would seem highly likely to me that at some point one of the spouses would change his/her mind about wanting a child/children while the other didn’t, and that might lead to marital troubles and potentially divorce.

Otherwise, my concern/arguments against it would be more related to those big assumption I stated earlier that enter into other discussions about chastity< (both within and outside of marriage) and abortion. (And I’ll also mention regarding the op first assumption that if two people who are married to each other really never, ever want children, then I’d have to think that somewhere underlying that is potentially some type of “just” cause, since the Church has not yet ever definitively stated what is or isn’t a just cause.)

 

[yellow8yellowM]

"Assuming there was no just cause" is a huge assumption. I will make a few other huge assumptions–I assume we are speaking of husband and wife, (because otherwise the discussion is really about marital relations outside of marriage) and I’ll assume that they are chaste during the woman’s fertile times, (otherwise it becomes a discussion about those acts) and I’ll assume that they would not turn to abortion should the wife become pregnant, (because then the argument becomes about abortion.) If all of those assumptions held true, then if a husband and wife desire to use NFP to postpone pregnancy, then I would not try to argue with them at all. The nature of using NFP effectively requires the couple to practice self-sacrifice, and I would expect that they would either eventually change their minds and welcome a child/children or they would learn and achieve a heroic level of self-sacrifice for our present society.

It would seem highly likely to me that at some point one of the spouses would change his/her mind about wanting a child/children while the other didn’t, and that might lead to marital troubles and potentially divorce.

Otherwise, my concern/arguments against it would be more related to those big assumption I stated earlier that enter into other discussions about chastity< (both within and outside of marriage) and abortion. (And I’ll also mention regarding the op first assumption that if two people who are married to each other really never, ever want children, then I’d have to think that somewhere underlying that is potentially some type of “just” cause, since the Church has not yet ever definitively stated what is or isn’t a just cause.)

My original post was 100% hypothetical. I am asking that in cases where there absolutely is no just cause.

 

[gardenswithkids]

My original post was 100% hypothetical. I am asking that in cases where there absolutely is no just cause.

I get that you are making a hypothetical argument–however, as the Church has not stated definitively what is or is not a just cause, I’m hard pressed to judge that they don’t. I suggest that you embrace any such hypothetical married husband and wife as hypothetical friends instead of determining that they have absolutely no just cause. If they are using NFP while otherwise practicing chastity within a marriage, why argue with people who mostly agree with you on that point? Certainly you could find better things to argue with your hypothetical secular friends about.

Assuming this hypothetical couple lived a normal lifespan, it’s *not *normal for people to go their entire lives never wanting children while having no good reason. If both of them really had no good reason for not wanting children, that alone is abnormal enough to make me suspect they both have some type of underlying psychological or emotional problems. And that could be considered a “just cause”.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

…If they are using NFP while otherwise practicing chastity within a marriage, why argue with people who mostly agree with you on that point? Certainly you could find better things to argue with your hypothetical secular friends about.

I would not argue with those practicing NFP, and I know it would be none of my business to delve into their lives to find out if they had a just cause or not. The purpose of this post is to find an argument against an atheist or at least very strong non-catholic when they bring up our beliefs about NFP. I don’t know this person very well, but I do know that they are very smart and logical. If I were them, I would bring up this question: “Why is it immoral to have sex only on the most infertile days, forever, to never, ever have children, assuming there is no just cause.”

It seems that you can never violate the natural law by using NFP, so what is the immoral aspect to it? Is it as simple as committing the sin of gluttony? If nobody can answer me I think I’m finally going to call in and ask somebody on Catholic Answers Radio.

Assuming this hypothetical couple lived a normal lifespan, it’s *not *normal for people to go their entire lives never wanting children while having no good reason. If both of them really had no good reason for not wanting children, that alone is abnormal enough to make me suspect they both have some type of underlying psychological or emotional problems. And that could be considered a “just cause”.

Your argument here makes everything a just cause. Surely there are some selfish people out there who selfishly don’t want kids but have enough fear of God to at least use NFP.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Your argument here makes everything a just cause. Surely there are some selfish people out there who selfishly don’t want kids but have enough fear of God to at least use NFP.

Yes, but those people wouldn’t exactly be secualarists, so the discussion with them would not be the same one that you’d use with an atheist.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… If I were them, I would bring up this question: “Why is it immoral to have sex only on the most infertile days, forever, to never, ever have children, assuming there is no just cause.”…

“Never ever have children” would assume that they always use NFP perfectly and never have anything odd about the woman’s cycles. Big assumptions. The nature of NFP requires self sacrifice and that builds in some protection against abuse.

(And I’d love to chat more but I have to go right now and take care of my non-hypothetical, very real children.)

 

[yellow8yellowM]

Yes, but those people wouldn’t exactly be secualarists, so the discussion with them would not be the same one that you’d use with an atheist.

I see where you were going with this. Yes, I would not bring up this argument with them because we cannot assume they had no just cause. But if they are reading your post they shouldn’t get the idea that they are off the hook and can say to themselves, “The mere fact that I don’t want children makes me somewhat abnormal and therefore is a just cause in itself.”