P
Pup7
Guest
There is something available along those lines already. I wouldn’t call them cheap, but they’re not terribly expensive either.
- Status
D
Dan123
Guest
Indeed I was vaguely aware there’s fertility tools that help with that though that’s pretty much the extent of my knowledge. At least means the example isn’t quite as science fiction as it could be 
The reliability is probably the bigger component because to me that seems to be the big difference. Otherwise you’d have to consider why God would send children to women using NFP so much more often than those using other methods.
You did remind me of a point I thought of as well but forgot during the half a day the thread got locked which is fertility treatments. Frankly more importantly than the other examples I gave above would be the use of fertility treatment to improve the chances of getting pregnant. I realize there’s some controversy over IVF as it often created unused embryos, but obviously that’s not the only method.
If a couple is having trouble conceiving because a man’s testosterone is lower than average, that may very well be his “normal” but I’ve not heard objections to couples using hormonal therapy to improve their chances of conceiving. That couple is doing the same thing, using hormonal treatments to change an aspect of their biology to change the odds of them getting pregnant to suit their current desires. Other than presuming lots of babies = good I’m curious if we apply the same reasoning how these two acts would be fundamentally different.
The reliability is probably the bigger component because to me that seems to be the big difference. Otherwise you’d have to consider why God would send children to women using NFP so much more often than those using other methods.You did remind me of a point I thought of as well but forgot during the half a day the thread got locked which is fertility treatments. Frankly more importantly than the other examples I gave above would be the use of fertility treatment to improve the chances of getting pregnant. I realize there’s some controversy over IVF as it often created unused embryos, but obviously that’s not the only method.
If a couple is having trouble conceiving because a man’s testosterone is lower than average, that may very well be his “normal” but I’ve not heard objections to couples using hormonal therapy to improve their chances of conceiving. That couple is doing the same thing, using hormonal treatments to change an aspect of their biology to change the odds of them getting pregnant to suit their current desires. Other than presuming lots of babies = good I’m curious if we apply the same reasoning how these two acts would be fundamentally different.
Last edited:
S
SusanneT
Guest
Wouldn’t that just be birth control, full stop ?
P
Pup7
Guest
An ovulation predictor?
No. It’s not.
No more than NFP. It measures hormonal fluctuations. NFP tracks cervical position and mucus and temps. An ovulation predictor measures the actual hormones that shift as these changes occur.
If you want a really accurate picture of what’s happening, use an ovulation predictor. NFP is actually doing the exact same thing.
No. It’s not.
No more than NFP. It measures hormonal fluctuations. NFP tracks cervical position and mucus and temps. An ovulation predictor measures the actual hormones that shift as these changes occur.
If you want a really accurate picture of what’s happening, use an ovulation predictor. NFP is actually doing the exact same thing.
Last edited:
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
This is an amazing talk: “sex has a pricetag”. She has a secular version, and a religious version:
A
Axsenex
Guest
“Global Condom Market Worth USD 9.6 Billion by 2021”
The global baby diaper market was valued at approximately 49 billion U.S. dollars in 2016.
Interesting…
The global baby diaper market was valued at approximately 49 billion U.S. dollars in 2016.
Interesting…
A
Axsenex
Guest
Because if it’s 100% then one day it fails then they get sued for it. It’s best to say 99.9% instead of 100%.
A
AndrewAxland
Guest
On the lighter side, my best friend in high school was a bit of a neer-do-well. He totaled two of his father’s Dodge Royal Broughams in as many years. His father used to call him “twenty five cents”, because he said if he hadn’t been too cheap to spend a quarter on a condom back in the day, he would be tens of thousands of dollars richer now.
P
Pup7
Guest
I’m not surprised. Diapers are insanely expensive here. Go take a look on our target.com - they’re outrageously expensive.
Condoms are super cheap in comparison. No kidding.
Condoms are super cheap in comparison. No kidding.
K
klmt123
Guest
Yes absolutely everyone sexually active should be STD tested after every single sex partner they have!! Not just right before marriage!
L
LittleFlower
Guest
Yes, but most people don’t do this and one could argue from a moral standpoint that if it is prudent for both sex partners to use one regardless.
A
alice24
Guest
But is this really a fact? The Pearl index is not displaying this…
A
alice24
Guest
…or at least ultra sound. The ovulation tests are like gambling for me;-)
B
Belina
Guest
I don’t have any formal theological training, so I may not do the best job explaining things. If you would like, I can refer you to people who can do a better job explaining the Church’s teachings. For now, I’ll try my best to make this less confusing for you. This will be very lengthy because your deep questions require deep answers. There is a lot of depth to Catholic teachings – and I’m actually barely covering the basics! So my response may be separated into multiple posts as there are maximum word lengths per post on the forums.
If all the teens did stay abstinent, then there would be no teen pregnancies and STD transmissions among them. God gave them free will, though, so many of them will abuse that free will and choose to sin anyway. Regardless of whichever method of Sex. Ed instruction provides better results, we as Catholics must advocate for abstinence-based education. We can’t in good moral conscience support programs that advocate for things we consider immoral like contraception, fornication, homosexual acts, etc. The ends do not justify the means, which is a fancy Catholic way of saying good goals cannot morally be accomplished through immoral methods because the immoral methods would still make the acts intrinsically immoral. So even if these types of Sex. Ed programs did effectively meet the good goals of preventing STDS or unplanned pregnancies, the immoral methods used to accomplish them cannot be morally justified. It’s like not allowing people to meet the good goal of reducing poverty by breaking into other people’s homes and stealing all their stuff.
Even with the the non- abstinence-based Sex. Ed programs, teens still end up facing unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Condoms are not 100% effective and some teens do not use them properly (or at all). If we want ZERO teen pregnancies and STD transmissions, then the abstinence-based programs would actually be the most effective if the teens were 100% compliant vs. 100% compliance with correct contraceptive usage. We’re probably not going to get these kinds of results in real life though because as I mentioned earlier, people have free will and can use that free will to go against God’s ways.
According to the Catholic view, self-defense is only moral when it is absolutely necessary to protect one’s life or others, but it becomes immoral when one intends to kill. The primary intention is to preserve my life if I knock a violent mugger to the ground with the hope of stopping him to give me enough time to run away. If he ends up dying because he hit his head, I didn’t do anything immoral because I did not plan on killing him; it just ended up happening. It would be wrong if I purposely knocked him to the ground with the HOPE that he would die because then I am intending on having him die. The amount of physical force should also be proportional and as moderate as possible; no more force should be used than necessary. For example, if the mugger is on the ground hurt and I have the opportunity to run away but I keep kicking him on the ground to purposely make him feel more pain and suffering, then I am in the wrong for using more force than necessary to protect myself.
There is a lot of depth to Catholic teachings – and I’m actually barely covering the basics! So my response may be separated into multiple posts as there are maximum word lengths per post on the forums.If all the teens did stay abstinent, then there would be no teen pregnancies and STD transmissions among them. God gave them free will, though, so many of them will abuse that free will and choose to sin anyway. Regardless of whichever method of Sex. Ed instruction provides better results, we as Catholics must advocate for abstinence-based education. We can’t in good moral conscience support programs that advocate for things we consider immoral like contraception, fornication, homosexual acts, etc. The ends do not justify the means, which is a fancy Catholic way of saying good goals cannot morally be accomplished through immoral methods because the immoral methods would still make the acts intrinsically immoral. So even if these types of Sex. Ed programs did effectively meet the good goals of preventing STDS or unplanned pregnancies, the immoral methods used to accomplish them cannot be morally justified. It’s like not allowing people to meet the good goal of reducing poverty by breaking into other people’s homes and stealing all their stuff.
Even with the the non- abstinence-based Sex. Ed programs, teens still end up facing unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Condoms are not 100% effective and some teens do not use them properly (or at all). If we want ZERO teen pregnancies and STD transmissions, then the abstinence-based programs would actually be the most effective if the teens were 100% compliant vs. 100% compliance with correct contraceptive usage. We’re probably not going to get these kinds of results in real life though because as I mentioned earlier, people have free will and can use that free will to go against God’s ways.
According to the Catholic view, self-defense is only moral when it is absolutely necessary to protect one’s life or others, but it becomes immoral when one intends to kill. The primary intention is to preserve my life if I knock a violent mugger to the ground with the hope of stopping him to give me enough time to run away. If he ends up dying because he hit his head, I didn’t do anything immoral because I did not plan on killing him; it just ended up happening. It would be wrong if I purposely knocked him to the ground with the HOPE that he would die because then I am intending on having him die. The amount of physical force should also be proportional and as moderate as possible; no more force should be used than necessary. For example, if the mugger is on the ground hurt and I have the opportunity to run away but I keep kicking him on the ground to purposely make him feel more pain and suffering, then I am in the wrong for using more force than necessary to protect myself.
B
Belina
Guest
The goal of NFP is NOT to enjoy sex without a resulting pregnancy. As I mentioned in my previous post, many NFP users seek to get pregnant by using NFP methods to determine their fertile periods of each month. The Church teaches couples should prayerfully and responsibly evaluate their circumstances and determine if planning a pregnancy at that particular time is prudent. If the couple decides it is a good time to have a child, then they may choose to purposely have sex during their fertile periods to achieve pregnancy. If the couple decides they have just reasons to delay having a child, such as certain financial, health, social, or psychological situations, then they may decide to have sex during the infertile periods (or to become completely abstinent instead if that is their choice). They are working in accordance with God’s natural built-in design and not purposely closing off the sex act to life. Even in circumstances where the couple is having sex during these infertile periods, they remain open to life and God’s will by always remaining open to the possibility of pregnancy and lovingly accepting any child that ends up being conceived, planned or not.
The PRIMARY GOAL of NFP is to have sex according to God’s will and God’s design, not to primarily avoid pregnancy or enjoy sex without pregnancy. The NFP-using couple understands that sex is primarily designed for baby-making, so they must always remain open to the possibility that God might will a pregnancy for them outside of their plans. They don’t do anything to thwart that design. The Church teaches that the primary purpose of sex is for procreation because sex is designed for babies, while the secondary purpose is for marital bonding. So for every sex act to be moral, these 2 aspects must not be separated; EVERY sex act must be both unitive and procreative. It’s kind of like eating food; the primary purpose is to nourish the human body and the secondary purpose is to enjoy the food. Both are good, but the primary purpose is the most important. If one deliberately always eats for pleasure alone, that would be immoral because they are purposely putting aside the primary purpose which is to nourish the body. God mainly designed for our bodies to be nourished by food rather than eating for pleasure alone. It’s not a perfect analogy, but I hope you understand what I’m trying to say.
The primary goal of contraception, on the other hand, is to enjoy sex without a resulting pregnancy. Most individuals who use contraceptives are purposely wanting the pleasures of sex without the openness to children or “burdens and consequences of children,” as some might view them. Many abortions occur because of failed contraception. Even if the individuals did accept to raise the children later on, they still intended to be closed off to life during the sex act itself, while the NFP-using couple was always open to the idea of pregnancy. I think a better way of describing it is that the contraceptive couple is intending to deliberately prevent the sexual act from accomplishing what it is supposed to do, “frustrating” or “altering” the natural act and natural design, if you know what I mean.
The PRIMARY GOAL of NFP is to have sex according to God’s will and God’s design, not to primarily avoid pregnancy or enjoy sex without pregnancy. The NFP-using couple understands that sex is primarily designed for baby-making, so they must always remain open to the possibility that God might will a pregnancy for them outside of their plans. They don’t do anything to thwart that design. The Church teaches that the primary purpose of sex is for procreation because sex is designed for babies, while the secondary purpose is for marital bonding. So for every sex act to be moral, these 2 aspects must not be separated; EVERY sex act must be both unitive and procreative. It’s kind of like eating food; the primary purpose is to nourish the human body and the secondary purpose is to enjoy the food. Both are good, but the primary purpose is the most important. If one deliberately always eats for pleasure alone, that would be immoral because they are purposely putting aside the primary purpose which is to nourish the body. God mainly designed for our bodies to be nourished by food rather than eating for pleasure alone. It’s not a perfect analogy, but I hope you understand what I’m trying to say.
The primary goal of contraception, on the other hand, is to enjoy sex without a resulting pregnancy. Most individuals who use contraceptives are purposely wanting the pleasures of sex without the openness to children or “burdens and consequences of children,” as some might view them. Many abortions occur because of failed contraception. Even if the individuals did accept to raise the children later on, they still intended to be closed off to life during the sex act itself, while the NFP-using couple was always open to the idea of pregnancy. I think a better way of describing it is that the contraceptive couple is intending to deliberately prevent the sexual act from accomplishing what it is supposed to do, “frustrating” or “altering” the natural act and natural design, if you know what I mean.
B
Belina
Guest
As I explained earlier, the Church allows couples to determine prudent times of having children based on their life circumstances. So it’s not really the intention of prevention of pregnancy itself that’s wrong (unless it’s for selfish reasons, such as the example I gave earlier about wanting the pleasure of sex without dealing with the consequences of a child), but it’s the fact that contracepting individuals are purposely trying to thwart or alter God’s natural design. Remember that God PRIMARILY designed sex for making babies; pleasure of bonding between couples is a secondary aspect. The couple is purposely using a device to stop the act from accomplishing what it is made for, whereas the NFP-using couple is working with God’s design and not changing or disrupting the act itself. The contraceptive individuals or couple are taking an action to directly alter the sexual act, whereas the NFP couple is simply avoiding sexual relations on fertile days. They have the right to abstain from sex whenever they want; it’s a morally neutral action. So the intentions seem similar, but they’re not. And even if the intentions were the same, the methods are not morally equal; as I wrote in the first paragraph, the means do not justify the ends. More information at the following links: Why Contraception Is Wrong | Catholic Answers
http://www.chastity.com/question/a-friend-said-it-doesn’t-make-sense-for-the-church-to-permit-natural-family-planning-nfp-wh
The Church is definitely not against modern medicine and science! If that were the case, Catholics wouldn’t have built all those universities, hospitals, clinics, health facilities, and medical religious orders all those centuries! Jesus Himself said that the sick need physicians. I am not comparing contraception to murder and rape! I was simply using an analogy in my previous post to show you why a couple intending to contracept is wrong, even if God can change the results of their intended actions. In Catholic theology, some sins are graver than others. So murder is more evil than rape; rape is more serious than contraception, etc. Sins are not morally equal; some actions are more sinful than others. NFP methods are not as antiquated or ineffective as you might think. Some methods were developed not that long ago and have accuracy rates as high as 99% (better than or similar to various contraceptive devices).
http://www.chastity.com/question/a-friend-said-it-doesn’t-make-sense-for-the-church-to-permit-natural-family-planning-nfp-wh
The Church is definitely not against modern medicine and science! If that were the case, Catholics wouldn’t have built all those universities, hospitals, clinics, health facilities, and medical religious orders all those centuries! Jesus Himself said that the sick need physicians. I am not comparing contraception to murder and rape! I was simply using an analogy in my previous post to show you why a couple intending to contracept is wrong, even if God can change the results of their intended actions. In Catholic theology, some sins are graver than others. So murder is more evil than rape; rape is more serious than contraception, etc. Sins are not morally equal; some actions are more sinful than others. NFP methods are not as antiquated or ineffective as you might think. Some methods were developed not that long ago and have accuracy rates as high as 99% (better than or similar to various contraceptive devices).
B
Belina
Guest
You are right that God can allow our bodies to heal ourselves to a certain degree. If it weren’t for the Original Fall, we wouldn’t be getting sick. Getting sick was not part of God’s original plan for us. He doesn’t will for us to become sick, but He may allow it in certain circumstances to bring about a greater good. We know that God doesn’t create or cause evil and suffering, but He can permit them to happen for greater purposes. These are usually purposes we don’t know, as we have finite, limited human knowledge, but we can still see some possible good reasons why He might allow certain things. He may permit us to get sick to motivate humans to develop greater compassion toward one other, such as when we use medicine and develop technology to ease the suffering and cure the sicknesses of others. He may also allow it to encourage us to take good care of our health and realize our lives are gifts from Him, or to remind us of our dependence on Him and to keep our main focus on Him.
When we use technology and medicine to cure sicknesses, that’s indeed a good thing. You are correct that God gave us the brains and abilities to use technology to improve lives. These are gifts that we should use! Our bodies can only heal themselves to a limited degree. That’s why we need antibiotics, stitches, transfusions, and casts. If the sicknesses go beyond our bodies’ natural abilities to heal, we need technology to make up the difference. God knows and permits that because it’s good to help sick people become better. Again, He doesn’t want us to be sick, but only permits it for good reasons. With that being said, the technological and medical methods of healing we use must still be morally good or morally neutral. We cannot use methods that are immoral, as that would render the acts intrinsically evil regardless of the good intentions in mind or good goals that may be accomplished – Remember, the ends do not justify the means, as I wrote in the first paragraph.
So now that brings us to why contraceptive devices are immoral methods. As mentioned earlier, they are morally impermissible because they purposely thwart God’s natural design and directly stop the sexual act from accomplishing its primary purpose of conception, which is what the act of physical love is made for. They are also not comparable to your examples of prosthetics and implants as acceptable technological methods because contraception is not healing anything that’s broken. Fertility is not a disease! We are meant to hear, see, walk, and have arms, so if those are out of order, they need to be fixed. We’re not against contraception because it’s artificial. We’re opposed because it is unnatural in the sense that it is going against the proper and natural function of the human body (God’s natural design of the proper functioning of the reproductive system).
When we use technology and medicine to cure sicknesses, that’s indeed a good thing. You are correct that God gave us the brains and abilities to use technology to improve lives. These are gifts that we should use! Our bodies can only heal themselves to a limited degree. That’s why we need antibiotics, stitches, transfusions, and casts. If the sicknesses go beyond our bodies’ natural abilities to heal, we need technology to make up the difference. God knows and permits that because it’s good to help sick people become better. Again, He doesn’t want us to be sick, but only permits it for good reasons. With that being said, the technological and medical methods of healing we use must still be morally good or morally neutral. We cannot use methods that are immoral, as that would render the acts intrinsically evil regardless of the good intentions in mind or good goals that may be accomplished – Remember, the ends do not justify the means, as I wrote in the first paragraph.
So now that brings us to why contraceptive devices are immoral methods. As mentioned earlier, they are morally impermissible because they purposely thwart God’s natural design and directly stop the sexual act from accomplishing its primary purpose of conception, which is what the act of physical love is made for. They are also not comparable to your examples of prosthetics and implants as acceptable technological methods because contraception is not healing anything that’s broken. Fertility is not a disease! We are meant to hear, see, walk, and have arms, so if those are out of order, they need to be fixed. We’re not against contraception because it’s artificial. We’re opposed because it is unnatural in the sense that it is going against the proper and natural function of the human body (God’s natural design of the proper functioning of the reproductive system).
B
Belina
Guest
The purpose of contraception is to disrupt the reproductive system from functioning the way it is supposed to, which is different from legitimate forms of medical technology that help bodily systems function the way they are supposed to. For example, a pacemaker helps the heart beat properly; it is artificial but it is not dysfunctional or immoral because it helps the heart beat the way it was naturally designed to. It’s the natural heart beating dysfunctionally that is acting unnaturally and that needs to be fixed. The pacemaker is correcting something that’s wrong. Contraception is trying to “fix” the healthy condition of fertility, which is a gift from God and what the reproductive system is naturally designed for. It is not correcting a pathological condition. That is why it is wrong and different from forms of medical technology that help body systems/organs function the way they are supposed to (naturally designed). So that is another reason contraception is immoral and cannot be used as legitimate medicine for any good goals or intentions; all contraceptive acts are intrinsically immoral. Once again, the ends do not justify the means! For more information, go to this link: Why is contraception immoral when pacemakers are not? | Catholic Answers
With that being said, reproductive organs that are diseased can be removed because the intention is to heal a pathological condition, not induce infertility. The resulting infertility is an unintended, indirect consequence of the treatment. And birth control pills can be used to treat legitimate medical purposes like menstrual cramps if there is no intention of infertility because the primary intention is to treat the pathological condition of menstrual cramps, while infertility is an unintended secondary effect that ended up happening due to the treatment.
In answer to your last question, absolutely yes! I think there are NFP tests out there that do just that. An ovulation predictor would be one of them. I’m single, so I’m not a NFP user and can’t give you good information about the specific methods, but I know many other NFP users have found tests that they say are highly accurate. There are many different methods of NFP, so you may have to go on a NFP-specific website to find out about the specific mechanisms and different accuracy rates of each particular method. You would indeed still be co-operating with God’s natural design because you are working in accordance with the cycles of natural fertility and infertility that He designed for each woman. Again, if I’m not explaining things well, I can direct you to other people who are better-equipped to answer your questions, or perhaps good books and web articles.
With that being said, reproductive organs that are diseased can be removed because the intention is to heal a pathological condition, not induce infertility. The resulting infertility is an unintended, indirect consequence of the treatment. And birth control pills can be used to treat legitimate medical purposes like menstrual cramps if there is no intention of infertility because the primary intention is to treat the pathological condition of menstrual cramps, while infertility is an unintended secondary effect that ended up happening due to the treatment.
In answer to your last question, absolutely yes! I think there are NFP tests out there that do just that. An ovulation predictor would be one of them. I’m single, so I’m not a NFP user and can’t give you good information about the specific methods, but I know many other NFP users have found tests that they say are highly accurate. There are many different methods of NFP, so you may have to go on a NFP-specific website to find out about the specific mechanisms and different accuracy rates of each particular method. You would indeed still be co-operating with God’s natural design because you are working in accordance with the cycles of natural fertility and infertility that He designed for each woman. Again, if I’m not explaining things well, I can direct you to other people who are better-equipped to answer your questions, or perhaps good books and web articles.
P
Pup7
Guest
Modern ovulation predictors are extremely accurate. Most people using NFP just don’t use them.
They’re not cheap, for one. They’re not expensive, but they’re not $2 a pop either.
P
Pup7
Guest
Actually, the purpose of contraception from a medical standpoint is to prevent pregnancy and not “disrupt the reproductive system”. They’re to prevent pregnancy, full stop. It’s not to “fix” the healthy state of fertility. The purpose is to prevent the woman from becoming pregnant. That’s their only medical purpose.
Last edited:
- Status