The Case Against Contraception

[Nate13]

Logic? Really, one couple chooses to live within the context of the Catholic Church and sacrifices sex during fertile periods…now that can last almost half the month. The other couple goes outside the teachings of the Church and uses the prohibited method of contraception during both fertile periods and unfertile periods.

I see a clear difference in both method and mindset. Results may be the same, but the method and mindset are not and there is the big difference. This is the biggest thing that is always thrown around when we talk about sin…what is in your heart (mindset). I will speak for one who practices NFP with my wife…in our heart (our mindset) is obedience to the church that Christ founded. Our mindset is one of openness to life, but more importantly, an attempt to keep each other in a state of God’s grace. We sacrifice 2 weeks of intimate feelings because of our love for the Church and God. Our mindset includes the fact that our physical relations are a consummation of a sacrament of the Catholic Church and we try live that sacrament accordingly. Matrimony as a sacrament is not like Baptism. Baptism is a one time event, Matrimony as a sacrament is an ongoing sacrament until the death of either husband or wife.

Exactly. Its like showing up for a baptism and telling the priest you don’t want any water to get on you

 

[sw85]

The only reason I ever came here really was to point out the inconsistencies and flaws I have seen in the arguments on this thread against contraception.

…I only did this to offer advice - if your goal is to convince people that contraception is wrong, find an argument that at least holds water and doesn’t contradict itself.

Sigh.

The “inconsistency” is entirely an artifact of your misapprehension of the language the Church uses, but whatever. You’re smarter than Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, apparently, so what do I know?

“Dissenters”…“Rebellion”…etc.

What a great way to have a discussion. Insult and demean.

You are denying that you dissent from a Church teaching (the opposite being to “assent,” to agree to follow something)? Or that you are rebelling against the legitimate masterium of the Church?

There is nothing even remotely offensive about either of those words; they are simply statements of fact. The Church was founded by Christ Himself: you owe it obedience: to deny it that is to rebel against a legitimate sovereign.

There is an inherent problem with line of thinking. “In a manner consistent with its end” does not equal “intervaginal ejaculation” if the discussion is about procreation. Having intervaginal ejaculation intentionally during the infertile period for the purposes of avoiding having children is clearly disordered if you’re arguing the primary purpose of sex is procreation. Even the Church recognizes this, by placing restriction on NFP, part of which involves having intervaginal ejaculation during the infertile period. Sex during the infertile period by using NFP makes places pleasure above procreation.

As has been pointed out, the question re: contraception is not of end but of means; the end of avoiding pregnancy is perfectly licit provided the reasons for doing so are legitimate. Thus, as the Church says, NFP can rise to the level of a sin if the will is disordered: that is, if it is used in pursuit of an illicit end.

The distinction between them is one of means. NFP conforms to the end of the sexual faculty because the act itself is not altered in any way; it still conforms to the manner in which procreation occurs. Contraception does not. You do not conceive children, in principle, by ejaculating in a condom, or in a vagina that has been intentionally sterilized by oral contraception: the *act itself *is qualitatively altered.

This line of thinking is dismissive of people like myself. The primary purpose of marriage (for those not elderly) is not about having sex and raising children; it is simply about raising children. The focus is always on what people do in their bed, yet it misses the point that not everyone raises their own children…some of us raise other’s children. If one is to focus solely on those children created by their own DNA, then they miss the big picture.

Well, I gather you readily take offense, so I’m not surprised.

But there is nothing even remotely controversial about the statement that the sexual act in and of itself gives rise to the institution of marriage, whether or not the act is (for any given couple) going to or intended to realize its end. This is why the Church permits chronically infertile couples to marry so long as they are capable of completing the sexual act in a manner consistent with its end.

Contraception in this case is irrelevant. Adoptive families are clearly open to life.

“Openness to life” is not some personality trait but a feature of the sexual act itself. This is another one of those confusions of language that alone give the case for contraception the appearance of legitimacy.

To be “open to life” simply means to have sex in a manner consistent with the end of procreation.

Abandoned children don’t care if someone was wearing a piece of rubber. In fact, in some cases those might even be happy the did, because otherwise they might be ignored in some orphanage in some atheist country, or worse.

You have the temerity to spout consequentialist nonsense and then take umbrage to being termed a “dissenter” and “rebel” from Church teachings?

Chronically infertile couples are not having procreative sex…period. My wife and I aren’t having any children naturally (because of natural issues), and we have sex for pleasure…period. And we’re having a blast doing so.

You are not having “procreative sex” if you define natural law with respect to its outcome, which is rank consequentialism. The entire point here is that the outcome is not relevant to morality. Sex consistent with the end of procreation simply means “the kind of sex which, in principle, results in conception”; whether or not it happens to result in procreation, or even if it is capable of resulting in procreation for a particular couple at a particular time, is irrelevant.

If you and your wife are not fertile (whether chronically or at the moment due to some health issue or medication which is treating it) but still having sex that is not intentionally contraceptive, then you are still having sex in a manner consistent with the end of procreation. That procreation does not result is irrelevant.

By the way, have you ever stopped to question why there is a unitive aspect to sex? Is there a unitive aspect to waving hello to someone from the opposite side of the room? Or does the unitive aspect of sex itself derive from the procreative? Now what in the world about the prospect of creating and raising new life would necessitate a unitive aspect to sex, hmm?

 

[sw85]

Polygamy (and variants) actually occurs in nature,

This is relevant only if you (falsely) assume that the “natural” part of “natural law” means “occurring in nature,” which as I have said dozens of time now, doesn’t.

still exists is some primitive societies, and was permitted in the OT. The reason it doesn’t exist in many areas of the world today is by choice.

So what? What is the implication of this? Are you saying that choice endows a thing with goodness?

no but has God ever told you that how many kids you should have or with who? i doubt it, and if he does say go make kids with so and so im prettty sure you would do it. and if you had a feeling that God wanted you to have kids, even if its not him speaking out loud, then you would have kids. but who is to say God does not want you and your wife to have sex periodicaly but doesnot want you to have lots of kids.

you can only flout God’s will if you know his will.

And as far as Gods will all i know that he wants from me is to love everyone, spread his word, and do my best to follow in his steps.

God’s will is for what is best for us – that’s what love means (and what love is, especially what the love that God is, is).

What is better for us than to live up to what our natures truly demand for us: to follow the moral law which God has not only ordained for us but built into our very natures?

You don’t simply wait around for God to make you conform to His will. If you do that you will discover your error far too late.

 

[EternalJade]

Haha you just proclaimed the difference though. A couple practicing NFP can never have infertile sex when they are fertile while a couple using contraception can have infertile sex while they are fertile. This is a fundamental difference and the whole point is that we are saying having infertile sex when you are fertile is wrong plain and simple. I mean you can see the contradictory nature of that act just in how you say it.

It’s just so weird that natural law must be applied to sex when it isn’t to anything else. I just do not agree. By these measures smoking or dyeing your hair or getting an epidural during labor could send you to hell. Eek! I can’t apply one set of rules to sex and another to everything else.

Patrick I read your post too and there’s really nothing I can say to it because that’s the way you feel, and it works to you. I’m coming from an Anglican background. I think everything about the catholic faith makes sense, except for this. This one HUGE common during OT and NT times issue, that isn’t mentioned at all. I just can’t get on board with it, sorry. From an outside POV the NFP argument isn’t logical.

 

[Nate13]

It’s just so weird that natural law must be applied to sex when it isn’t to anything else. I just do not agree. By these measures smoking or dyeing your hair or getting an epidural during labor could send you to hell. Eek! I can’t apply one set of rules to sex and another to everything else.

Patrick I read your post too and there’s really nothing I can say to it because that’s the way you feel, and it works to you. I’m coming from an Anglican background. I think everything about the catholic faith makes sense, except for this. This one HUGE common during OT and NT times issue, that isn’t mentioned at all. I just can’t get on board with it, sorry. From an outside POV the NFP argument isn’t logical.

Natural law applies to a lot of things besides sex. I’m sure the OP could describe more of the implications of natural law if you would like. Do you believe you have to hear the word of God to know that murdering someone is wrong or that raping someone is wrong? Knowing these things are wrong does not require divine revelation.

Also I would argue this is in the Bible every time sexual immorality is called out. Don’t you find it interesting that in the same sentence within the bible it will call out fornication, adultery, and then reemphasize with sexual immorality? I would also say that the Bible’s condemnation of sorcery would have included known methods of both abortificants and contraceptives.

 

[EternalJade]

Not necessary but thank you anyway. I’m very knowledgeable when it comes to natural law. It isn’t a very good argument for NFP vs non abortificebt birth spacing.

 

[rben20]

I see it fairly straightforward. Using contraception is not a full self giving to your spouse and God. You are holding back your life creating ability through God by using contraception. Marriage and sex is suppose to be a total self-giving and surrender. We are commanded to multiply yet we deliberately contracept to keep that from happening. I agree with the Church firmly on this teaching.

 

[patrick127]

Patrick I read your post too and there’s really nothing I can say to it because that’s the way you feel, and it works to you. I’m coming from an Anglican background. I think everything about the catholic faith makes sense, except for this.

It’s not the way I feel per se…it was the way I was taught by the Catholic Church. It is now the way I feel, but this is something I worked and prayed on…quite a bit. I will admit that with quick look NFP can be seen as equivalent contraception. If all you give it is a quick look then you will get no further. And if you believe everything about the Catholic Faith…everything…than this should fall into the category of everything. Belief and understanding are 2 different things. I have faith in the Church…I don’t understand it all…I may not understand most of it, but I do Believe that Jesus came to earth and before he left he established this Church, the Catholic Church, and since I believe in that I follow what his church says. That to me is all of the Logic that I need. Just don’t shut yourself of to one thing because you do not understand it.

 

[Nate13]

Did not Jesus chastise Thomas because he had to “see” in order to believe? Thomas had to see the scars before he would believe Jesus had risen and was chastised for it. If we really believe that Jesus has established a Church here on Earth to protect and defend the Truth we should have the faith to believe that what the Church says as if it came out of the mouth of Jesus himself. Did not Jesus tell his disciples before he sent them out to preach “he who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me”

 

[ahs]

familylifeculturewatch.com/2009/06/outoutwedlock-births-out-of-control.html

in 1980 the Netherlands had 4% of their births out of wedlock. In 2009 that percentage was at 40% which is in line with is similar to what it was in the U.S. They aren’t doing any better there. The Netherlands also has huge problems with STD’s compared to us despite the “double dutch” method of contraception that is promoted there. It almost seems like a tradeoff between teen pregnancies and more abortions versus STD’s. The number of people with HIV in the Netherlands climbed 22% in one year…

I dont’ think you can get much more obvious than that (the stats in that link). Contraception does not do any good. It lets people fool themselves into thinking that sex is okay in any circumstance (in the long run) and eventually leads to a culture of sex-for-pleasure and the results cannot be argued…just look at those statistics!

 

[Warrior1979]

Are married Catholics who practice NFP having abortions at this rate?

This implies that their is something magical about practicing NFP that reduces the abortion rate, which of course is preposterous. The reason that people practicing NFP have fewer abortions has nothing to do with when they do/don’t have sex, and everything to do with being a die-hard Catholic that doesn’t believe in abortion.

It’s like saying those that receive Holy Orders are more likely to believe in Jesus Christ than the general public…who would’ve thought?

 

[Calliso]

This implies that their is something magical about practicing NFP that reduces the abortion rate, which of course is preposterous. The reason that people practicing NFP have fewer abortions has nothing to do with when they do/don’t have sex, and everything to do with being a die-hard Catholic that doesn’t believe in abortion.

It’s like saying those that receive Holy Orders are more likely to believe in Jesus Christ than the general public…who would’ve thought?

Exactly those using NFP are more likely to be those who donlt believe in abortion. NFP itself though doesn;t magically create this anti abortion mentality and I am sure there are those who have used natural methods similar to NFP who have had abortions. Just like there are those that use things like condoms and the pill and would never get abortions. I mean its not like someone takes the pill then automatically goes well I was anti abortion before…but now I am not!

 

[Debora123]

This implies that their is something magical about practicing NFP that reduces the abortion rate, which of course is preposterous. The reason that people practicing NFP have fewer abortions has nothing to do with when they do/don’t have sex, and everything to do with being a die-hard Catholic that doesn’t believe in abortion.

It’s like saying those that receive Holy Orders are more likely to believe in Jesus Christ than the general public…who would’ve thought?

 

[Calliso]

familylifeculturewatch.com/2009/06/outoutwedlock-births-out-of-control.html

in 1980 the Netherlands had 4% of their births out of wedlock. In 2009 that percentage was at 40% which is in line with is similar to what it was in the U.S. They aren’t doing any better there. The Netherlands also has huge problems with STD’s compared to us despite the “double dutch” method of contraception that is promoted there. It almost seems like a tradeoff between teen pregnancies and more abortions versus STD’s. The number of people with HIV in the Netherlands climbed 22% in one year…

Ok well I stand partially corrected then but their abortion rates are still lower right? And really if using contraception leads to more abortions one would think the Netherlands would have an equal if not worse problem with abortion then us right?

 

[Warrior1979]

You are denying that you dissent from a Church teaching (the opposite being to “assent,” to agree to follow something)? Or that you are rebelling against the legitimate masterium of the Church?

There is nothing even remotely offensive about either of those words; they are simply statements of fact. The Church was founded by Christ Himself: you owe it obedience: to deny it that is to rebel against a legitimate sovereign.

I take it that since you threw down the Magesterium/infallibility gauntlet that you believe that via secular reasoning is not possible to defend the anti-contraception position?

As has been pointed out, the question re: contraception is not of end but of means;

This in and of itself is extremely interesting, and explains how the Onan story can be interpreted in the way it did. It allows one to ignore the big picture, that being ignoring God, and focus solely on the method to ignore God, as if any method to ignore God is moral.

the end of avoiding pregnancy is perfectly licit provided the reasons for doing so are legitimate. Thus, as the Church says, NFP can rise to the level of a sin if the will is disordered: that is, if it is used in pursuit of an illicit end.

So, in other words, suppressing the primary purpose of sex is actually allowed. That sounds a lot like…never mind.

The distinction between them is one of means. NFP conforms to the end of the sexual faculty because the act itself is not altered in any way; it still conforms to the manner in which procreation occurs. Contraception does not. You do not conceive children, in principle, by ejaculating in a condom, or in a vagina that has been intentionally sterilized by oral contraception: the *act itself *is qualitatively altered.

The act might not be altered, but the primary function of sex is (procreation). Even Ray Charles can see that. The attempts at logic spin on this particular subject are just stunning.

But there is nothing even remotely controversial about the statement that the sexual act in and of itself gives rise to the institution of marriage, whether or not the act is (for any given couple) going to or intended to realize its end. This is why the Church permits chronically infertile couples to marry so long as they are capable of completing the sexual act in a manner consistent with its end.

If the Church actually said to simply said “complete the sexual act in a manner consistent with its end,” no problem…that actually makes sense. The verbal gymnastics involved in trying to apply “procreation,” “procreative act,” “ordered to procreation,” etc. simply leaves everyone flummoxed.

Example:

If you and your wife are not fertile (whether chronically or at the moment due to some health issue or medication which is treating it) but still having sex that is not intentionally contraceptive, then you are still having sex in a manner consistent with the end of procreation. That procreation does not result is irrelevant.

What is that supposed to mean? The last Chapter of James Joyce’s Ulysses is more readable than that.

Do you mean something like this?

I need to go to the store today but I’m not going to the store today but thinking about going to the store today so my actions are ordered toward going to the store today even though I didn’t get what I needed today when I needed to go to the store today.

By the way, have you ever stopped to question why there is a unitive aspect to sex? Is there a unitive aspect to waving hello to someone from the opposite side of the room? Or does the unitive aspect of sex itself derive from the procreative? Now what in the world about the prospect of creating and raising new life would necessitate a unitive aspect to sex, hmm?

The pleasurable part of sex, directly related to the unitive, is what drives sex in the first place. This part of sex always exists, though it naturally wanes with time. The procreative portion of sex does not always exist…which of course is simply stating the blatantly obvious.

 

[Calliso]

Sigh.

The “inconsistency” is entirely an artifact of your misapprehension of the language the Church uses, but whatever. You’re smarter than Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, apparently, so what do I know?

You are denying that you dissent from a Church teaching (the opposite being to “assent,” to agree to follow something)? Or that you are rebelling against the legitimate masterium of the Church?

There is nothing even remotely offensive about either of those words; they are simply statements of fact. The Church was founded by Christ Himself: you owe it obedience: to deny it that is to rebel against a legitimate sovereign.

As has been pointed out, the question re: contraception is not of end but of means; the end of avoiding pregnancy is perfectly licit provided the reasons for doing so are legitimate. Thus, as the Church says, NFP can rise to the level of a sin if the will is disordered: that is, if it is used in pursuit of an illicit end.

The distinction between them is one of means. NFP conforms to the end of the sexual faculty because the act itself is not altered in any way; it still conforms to the manner in which procreation occurs. Contraception does not. You do not conceive children, in principle, by ejaculating in a condom, or in a vagina that has been intentionally sterilized by oral contraception: the *act itself *is qualitatively altered.

Well, I gather you readily take offense, so I’m not surprised.

But there is nothing even remotely controversial about the statement that the sexual act in and of itself gives rise to the institution of marriage, whether or not the act is (for any given couple) going to or intended to realize its end. This is why the Church permits chronically infertile couples to marry so long as they are capable of completing the sexual act in a manner consistent with its end.

“Openness to life” is not some personality trait but a feature of the sexual act itself. This is another one of those confusions of language that alone give the case for contraception the appearance of legitimacy.

To be “open to life” simply means to have sex in a manner consistent with the end of procreation.

You have the temerity to spout consequentialist nonsense and then take umbrage to being termed a “dissenter” and “rebel” from Church teachings?

You are not having “procreative sex” if you define natural law with respect to its outcome, which is rank consequentialism. The entire point here is that the outcome is not relevant to morality. Sex consistent with the end of procreation simply means “the kind of sex which, in principle, results in conception”; whether or not it happens to result in procreation, or even if it is capable of resulting in procreation for a particular couple at a particular time, is irrelevant.

If you and your wife are not fertile (whether chronically or at the moment due to some health issue or medication which is treating it) but still having sex that is not intentionally contraceptive, then you are still having sex in a manner consistent with the end of procreation. That procreation does not result is irrelevant.
**
By the way, have you ever stopped to question why there is a unitive aspect to sex? Is there a unitive aspect to waving hello to someone from the opposite side of the room? Or does the unitive aspect of sex itself derive from the procreative? Now what in the world about the prospect of creating and raising new life would necessitate a unitive aspect to sex, hmm**?

Well to be honest while I think you have a point here sex can be unprocreative and still be uniative. I mean when I was having contraceptive sex with my husband it certainly helped unite us. Infertile couples can have uniative sex as well. Like I think I said before their are certain chemicals released in the brain during sex/orgasm that help with bonding and the like

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

This implies that their is something magical about practicing NFP that reduces the abortion rate, which of course is preposterous. The reason that people practicing NFP have fewer abortions has nothing to do with when they do/don’t have sex, and everything to do with being a die-hard Catholic that doesn’t believe in abortion.

It’s like saying those that receive Holy Orders are more likely to believe in Jesus Christ than the general public…who would’ve thought?

Actually I was asking a question.

There seems to be an idea that ABC and NFP are exactly the same thing. A high percentage of babies are aborted because the method of ABC failed. 54 percent is equal to about 700,000 babies.

Even the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood V Casey said:

While neither respondents nor their amici in so many words deny that the abortion right invites some reliance prior to its actual exercise, one can readily imagine an argument stressing the dissimilarity of this case to one involving property or contract. Abortion is customarily chosen as an unplanned response to the consequence of unplanned activity or to the failure of conventional birth control, and except on the assumption that no intercourse would have occurred but for Roe’s holding, such behavior may appear to justify no reliance claim. Even if reliance could be claimed on that unrealistic assumption, the argument might run, any reliance interest would be de minimis. This argument would be premised on the hypothesis that reproductive planning could take virtually immediate account of any sudden restoration of state authority to ban abortions.

To eliminate the issue of reliance that easily, however, one would need to limit cognizable reliance to specific instances of sexual activity. But to do this would be simply to refuse to face the fact that, for two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. See, e.g., R. Petchesky, Abortion and Woman’s Choice 109, 133, n. 7 (rev. ed. 1990). The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain cost of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed. [505 U.S. 833, 857]

 

[Warrior1979]

Actually I was asking a question.

There seems to be an idea that ABC and NFP are exactly the same thing. A high percentage of babies are aborted because the method of ABC failed. 54 percent is equal to about 700,000 babies.

So is 46% insignificant?

Fact is, 100% of people that have abortions do so because they believe it is a solution to their pregnancy, regardless of the way pregnancy occurred.

 

[ahs]

So is 46% insignificant?

Fact is, 100% of people that have abortions do so because they believe it is a solution to their pregnancy, regardless of the way pregnancy occurred.

Are you suggesting that the other 46% of abortions is due to NFP? Perhaps I am misunderstanding.

Are you also suggesting that the number of abortions seen today has absolutely nothing to do with an increase in contraceptive use? How many abortions were performed before 1930? I do hope you found time to watch the video I posted. It will help you see the direct correlation between contraception and abortion and give you a better idea of what is meant by the contraception mentality.

 

[EternalJade]

So is 46% insignificant?

Fact is, 100% of people that have abortions do so because they believe it is a solution to their pregnancy, regardless of the way pregnancy occurred.

Exactly! These people would end up aborting no matter what method or lack of. About half of all abortions result from unplanned pregnancies with NO contraception, let’s not forget. I would venture to say that a big portion of the people in the promiscuity/neglect/ abuse/abortion camp are the ones too ignorant or poor to be on birth control.