O
on_the_hill
Guest
In other words, it’s acceptable to use it to avoid pregnancy if a couple has serious/just/grave reasons.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I agree that this is a very bad basis for banning someone. But we don’t know if this was the actual basis for banning her. I wish there was some way we could know.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
A point we all agree on.
T
Thinking10
Guest
Which is, contracepting.
"Contraception
— n
birth control Compare family planning
the intentional prevention of conception by artificial or natural means. Artificial methods in common use include preventing the sperm from reaching the ovum (using condoms, diaphragms, etc), inhibiting ovulation (using oral contraceptive pills), preventing implantation (using intrauterine devices), killing the sperm (using spermicides), and preventing the sperm from entering the seminal fluid (by vasectomy). Natural methods include the rhythm method and coitus interruptus "
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
I think the contraception point is really just about semantics. Thread after thread has been devoted to this. Nothing really changes. I just stopped debating the point all together. Focusing on the actual NFP theology has been frustrating enough.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
This is like arguing over whether a procedure done to end an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion. It is one, in a sense, since it involves killing an embryo, but that does not decide whether it is moral or not.
If it is proven that NFP is contraception, that doesn’t show that NFP is wrong, not that artificial contraception isn’t morally objectionable in a way that NFP isn’t.
R
Rau
Guest
Yes, I agree. However, I think her posts exhibited more than just an unwillingness to agree. For example:
- Some seemed to amount to a manifesto in favour of Abortion / Contraception / IVF (euphemistically described as “Reproductive Rights”) notwithstanding minimal connection to the thread topic at hand;
- The arguments she put seemed to be a “sleight of hand”, revolving around word-definitions, not substance. She tried to argue as follows: “Catholics say contraception is bad and NFP is OK; but NFP is by definition Contraception; so Catholics are being dishonest / hypocrites.” All the while, refusing to see that she and Catholics don’t understand the same thing by the word “contraception”.
- The argument she put about lust was also a sleight of hand put to argue that God is cynical. She defined Lust as things (that need not be intrinsically bad) which arises in the ordinary course of life and notes the Church says Lust is a sin! She never bothers to note that the thing the Church calls Lust is not at all what she called Lust! [Her retort on this point: “Lust is lust is lust is lust…”.
- Her unbelievable interpretations of fairly straightforward statements in HV and in some material from the US Bishops. For example: she quotes this statement in HV:
and then tell us that this means (to her):
"that men (not “man”) should not demand any “approved” sex act from his partner. If both partners are wanting to engage in intercourse, they may do so, with absolutely no thought as to the appropriate time in her cycle. If a child is conceived, great, they go with it; if not, great, no sweat."
Despite receiving many coherent and reasonable responses, she never acknowledged any error on her part, or that anything in the responses to her gave her the slightest reason to think differently about the matter. This does not suggest reasoned and reasonable debating - it suggests “I’m here to throw mud at God and Church”.
R
Rau
Guest
That’s right. It is not about whether certain actions are within the scope of the definition of a word in the dictionary. If they are, fine, and this can be acknowledged with no skin off anyone’s nose.
The point is whether a condom offends a moral principle in a way NFP does not. Clear it does. Therefore, the debate should move on to whether or not the moral principle has merit. That is where the debate should logically go, not the nonsense that was no more than a word-game.
The same applies to your abortion example.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
I would like to rephrase some terms so the argument can be more in line with the mutilation and amputation example.Prodigal_Son:
Those are two separate statements. Could you please connect the dots for me, and explain how the second statement follows logically from the first? And make your premises as clear as possible?It follows from the first sentence that the object - act of contracepting is morally neutral.Jaaanosik:
The intent is - unitive love giving sex.
The circumstances are - it’s within the marriage.
Counter arguments:
Let’s talk about any counter arguments you might have.
- the contraception is not morally neutral; the contraception is intrinsically evil
The Church takes bad intent and circumstances, packages it together and proclaims an act intrinsically evil - see the mutilation. When we ‘unpack’ - separate the bad intent and circumstances from the act then we get allowed amputation.
From this point of view saying the contraception is intrinsically evil is irrelevant. It does not stand unless there is a double standard. That would put the Church in a bad position.- the intent is supposed to be unitive aspect and procreative aspect
The procreative aspect means how to have sex in a natural way - no barrier, man finishes in vagina.
First, just calling a way of having sex an intent or an end is illogical.
Second, going back to the car example, do we really move on the foot all the time? It’s OK to use a human invention for a licit purpose/end - unitive love giving sex within marriage.- the marital act is total gift of self, the contraception breaks that
The condom creates a barrier and it does not allow a sperm to come to the date with an ovum
The NFP makes sure that the ovum does not come to the date. It’s a different way how the date does not happen.
NFP couples know that a woman has more to offer. They hope that the full gift of herself does not happen. Calling this state of mind as a total gift is illogical.
It leads to split personalities. I’ve seen it.
The contraception is defined as intrinsically evil because it includes bad intentions and circumstances. Let’s keep it that way. This is like mutilation.
In order to separate the intent and circumstances I would like to introduce new definition - conception avoidance. This is like amputation.
The same logic that defines mutilation - amputation can be applied and it can address contraception - conception avoidance relationship.
The conception avoidance can be indirect - NFP and direct - condom, …
The contraception includes bad intent - selfish pleasure and outside of the marriage.
The conception avoidance includes good intent - unitive love giving sex and it’s within the marriage.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Question: do you think there is a moral difference between killing a person (in euthanasia) and simply letting them die (not putting them on life support)?
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
I don’t see a difference between disconnecting somebody from life support and not putting them on life support within a medical room.
If a person does not need life support then euthanasia is a different non-related story.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Why is euthanasia a different story, in the latter case? The result is the same.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
The intent and circumstances are different.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
The intent is for the person to be dead, in both cases.
Just as the intent of NFP and ABC are both to avoid conception. But the means of doing so is radically different.
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
That’s not true. In the first case the intent is to let the nature to take its course.
In the second it’s not.
Would you create any link between this questions and the discussed subject?
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
To let nature take its course BY not doing something.
In EXACTLY the same way, NFP lets nature take its course by a couple not doing something. Since they do make love at other points in the cycle (and since cycles are inconsistent), it is perfectly possible they will become pregnant. Just as it is perfectly possible a person will survive who isn’t put on life support.
T
Thinking10
Guest
So you are avoiding pregnancy… but you really aren’t. It seems more logical to do what you meant to do. It sounds like you are unsure of what your own intentions are by using NFP, and are making a choice with two completely opposite intentions at the same time.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Do you think active euthanasia is morally permissible?
J
Jaaanosik
Guest
If NFP let the nature its course then there would be no observation.
For example taking a temperature reading daily is like treating the conception as a disease.
There was no other reason to measure temperature daily before. Only when some NFP methods showed up and treat the conception that way.
- Status