The Case Against Contraception

[Warrior1979]

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

No. I am suggesting that the link between contraception use and abortion is week, at best. One can’t say: “50% of abortions are done by people that use contraceptives therefore contraceptives cause people to have abortions,” then simply dismiss the other 50% that don’t use contraceptives. One can argue the opposite and say the lack of contraceptive use causes people to have abortions.

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?

One has to be careful with the manner stats are used, and when comparing different time periods. The magnitude of abortions has increased, simply due to technology and personal privacy issues. We have no idea how many abortions were performed in the past, because they were illegal and not discussed, though it is certainly reasonable to assume that more happen today.

I don’t believe that it is the contraceptives per se, but rather the change in societal values. Naturally some will argue that is due to contraceptive use, but I believe that it has more to do with economic changes in society.

 

[ahs]

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.

But the point is, and what you will see if you watch the video linked below, is that the approval of the use of contraception by main-stream Christian churches can be linked directly to the legalization of abortion. It can be argued that abortion may never have been legalized to begin with had that “contraception mentality” not formed as it did.

Abortion became a “necessity” to those who had grown to see sex as a “right to pleasure” so to speak. The use of contraceptives gave an opening for this mentality that sex can be had by all because we all had this supposed right to experience the pleasures of sex. This led to people having sex in a way contrary to it’s natural order, which led to unwanted pregnancies, which led to abortions.

By the way, how many people who practice NFP have abortions when they get an unexpected pregnancy? Is that statistic available?

Please do yourselves a favor and watch this (it really it helpful in understanding):
realcatholictv.com/free/index.php?vidID=ciax-2011-07-22&ssnID=162

 

[Warrior1979]

But the point is, and what you will see if you watch the video linked below,

I’m not signing up to that site…sorry.

is that the approval of the use of contraception by main-stream Christian churches can be linked directly to the legalization of abortion. It can be argued that abortion may never have been legalized to begin with had that “contraception mentality” not formed as it did.

I’m curious as to how this addresses the fact that abortion is not limited to Christian countries, nor is it exclusive to the time frame subsequent to the approval of contraception of Christian Churches.

Abortion became a “necessity” to those who had grown to see sex as a “right to pleasure” so to speak. The use of contraceptives gave an opening for this mentality that sex can be had by all because we all had this supposed right to experience the pleasures of sex. This led to people having sex in a way contrary to it’s natural order, which led to unwanted pregnancies, which led to abortions.

Once again, man’s attempt to regulate procreation has exist as long as man discovered what procreation is.

By the way, how many people who practice NFP have abortions when they get an unexpected pregnancy? Is that statistic available?

Once again, people that practice NFP are already anti-abortion…it has nothing to do with NFP. Do you really believe that if you forced abortion advocates to practice NFP the problem would go away?

I really can’t take these discussions seriously when people use these type of “statistics.” It’s like asking how many car owners own cars. The answer sought is based on a data sample that only gives the desired result.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Part of the NFP / contraception discussion lately on these threads has been equating the two methods as morally equivalent.

The majority of abortions are done because the method failed, and abortion is the next option to make sure a baby is not the result of sex.

The supreme court cited this idea in Planned parenthood v casey

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.

So how are the two methods morally similar if abortion is the frequent option to failed contraception?

 

[joshrp]

I wasnt saying contraception is natural. I was just basically saying that NFP really isn;t “natural” But like others have pointed out before the naturalness of NFP isn;t what makes it ok. Though at some point in this thread it seems that that argument was brought up. I read the OP several times but to be honest I just donlt understand it at all. It doesn;t seem to really explain why NFP would be ok but condoms not. I mean I just donlt get the difference between saying I want to have sex but no babies and carefuly observing signs and charting and putting on a condom the intention is the exact same in both instances. I mean while I donlt really agree with this position I think things would make more sense if people would just say sex is for babies donlt have it if you donlt want them end of discussion.

If you are willing to have kids if they come, then you can have sex whenever you want. I no longer have any problem with people using NFP, as long as they are willing to raise the child if one is unintenionally conceived.

 

[ahs]

I’m not signing up to that site…sorry.

Oops. I forgot about that. Here is the same video on YouTube, so you don’t have to register on the website:
youtube.com/watch?v=RbKAlpbzASU&feature=related

I’m curious as to how this addresses the fact that abortion is not limited to Christian countries, nor is it exclusive to the time frame subsequent to the approval of contraception of Christian Churches…Once again, man’s attempt to regulate procreation has exist as long as man discovered what procreation is.

I’m not saying that abortion was never previously prevalent in non-Christian countries. I don’t think anyone would argue that it wasn’t. The Christians are supposed to be reaching out to the non-Christian countries to spread the Gospel, to bring Christ to the world, to root out evil and show all peoples how to live a life for God. Now that Christian countries are living contrary to God (at least in the sense of contraception) how do we ever expect to bring the Good News? If we are providing a poor example, not living according to the natural Law of God which we claim as part of our salvation, non-Christians will think we are just a joke.

Once again, people that practice NFP are already anti-abortion…

…Exactly! What does that tell you about people who practice NFP? How does that not show you a difference between contraception and NFP, between the overall mindset of those who use or advocate contraception and those use or advocate NFP?

 

[joshrp]

Part of the NFP / contraception discussion lately on these threads has been equating the two methods as morally equivalent.

The majority of abortions are done because the method failed, and abortion is the next option to make sure a baby is not the result of sex.

The supreme court cited this idea in Planned parenthood v casey

So how are the two methods morally similar if abortion is the frequent option to failed contraception?

If you are unwilling to abort a child no matter what, you can have sex with your spouse whenever you want. Just as long as you accept the consequences that you might conceive a child, then I am fine with it. You just need to understand that the consequence of having sex might be conception of a child. To try to avoid consequences of the natural purpose of sexuality is a sin. If you use NFP you are not avoiding the consequences of sex. You are merely trying to discern when are the best times to have sex without conceiving a child. The consequence of having sex while a woman is infertile is not to have a child. You might misjudge a woman’s infertile period and conceive a child. As long as you understand that you might conceive a child and you are willing to accept the consequences if it happens, then NFP is not sinful at all. It is not a form of contraception, it is a kind of prudence in action.

 

[ahs]

If you are unwilling to abort a child no matter what, you can have sex with your spouse whenever you want. Just as long as you accept the consequences that you might conceive a child, then I am fine with it. You just need to understand that the consequence of having sex might be conception of a child. To try to avoid consequences of the natural purpose of sexuality is a sin. If you use NFP you are not avoiding the consequences of sex. You are merely trying to discern when are the best times to have sex without conceiving a child. The consequence of having sex while a woman is infertile is not to have a child. You might misjudge a woman’s infertile period and conceive a child. As long as you understand that you might conceive a child and you are willing to accept the consequences if it happens, then NFP is not sinful at all. It is not a form of contraception, it is a kind of prudence in action.

Yes! Also note, the Church says that a couple needs a “just reason” and must not be using NFP out of “selfish desires”.

 

[Warrior1979]

The majority of abortions are done because the method failed, and abortion is the next option to make sure a baby is not the result of sex.

Be careful with your use of “majority.” The abortion rate for failure of contraceptive sex and non-contraceptive sex is essentially the same. That means you can’t establish a correlation, and that any statistical argument you make against contraception can also be made for non-contraception.

The supreme court cited this idea in Planned parenthood v casey

What the Supreme Court stated most certainly wasn’t based on those statistics.

So how are the two methods morally similar if abortion is the frequent option to failed contraception?

Abortion is also the frequent option to failed non-contraception at a statistically similar rate. Based purely on statistics, that would make them morally equivalent.

 

[Warrior1979]

If you use NFP you are not avoiding the consequences of sex.

This is an oxymoron. NFP is used to avoid the consequences of sex; i.e., procreation.

 

[joshrp]

Well as I understand it the Church rules basically say that the man has to orgasm inside the woman in each act. So it would actually be against the rules for the man to just give the woman a bunch of orgasms. As for woman not having orgasms throughout history…well to be fair we can;t be sure how common that really was. I think other then the fact that woman throughout much of history were seen as lesser then men lack of knowledge was also a big culprit here. I mean many women can;t orgasm from normal intercourse alone so I am guessing that many people just thought that woman couldn;t orgasm period and why bother trying to give a woman an orgasm if you believe she can;t have one?

As long as you accept the fact that you might have a child, then it is ok. It is perfectly naturally to try to discern methods of knowing when this won’t happen. But you might be mistaken, and as long as you know the consequences of that, NFP is ok and perfectly natural. It is not unnatural to use your judgment and common sense and have some prudence when deciding when and how to have kids and whether you want to have sex and just take a chance that you might be surprised with a new child.

 

[joshrp]

This is an oxymoron. NFP is used to avoid the consequences of sex; i.e., procreation.

Sex during infertile periods does not cause procreation.

 

[joshrp]

Yes! Also note, the Church says that a couple needs a “just reason” and must not be using NFP out of “selfish desires”.

Yea, truly. I was wondering if we can talk more about the unitive aspect of sexuality. I don’t really understand it that much.

 

[Poor_Soul]

This is an oxymoron. NFP is used to avoid the consequences of sex; i.e., procreation.

NFP is also used to increase the chance of pregnancy. When was the last time you heard a contraceptive advertise that fact about their product? Yeah not the same thing.

@EternalJade: You said if we are to contribute the increase of abortion to anything then it should be casual sex. Well I wanted to ask you what you thought caused the increase in casual sex: Hmmm maybe contraceptives.

 

[ahs]

Yea, truly. I was wondering if we can talk more about the unitive aspect of sexuality. I don’t really understand it that much.

I’m probably not the best at explaining it clearly, but I can certainly point you to a starting point to read and then you can post questions/comments for clarification.

Here are links to sections in the Catechism that describe the unity/unitive aspect:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P54.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P55.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM

It’s alot to read all at once, but this will help you understand enough to be able to ask more detailed questions (or it may just completely clarify it for you and you can help ME get a better grasp on it ).

 

[Calliso]

Oops. I forgot about that. Here is the same video on YouTube, so you don’t have to register on the website:
youtube.com/watch?v=RbKAlpbzASU&feature=related

I’m not saying that abortion was never previously prevalent in non-Christian countries. I don’t think anyone would argue that it wasn’t. The Christians are supposed to be reaching out to the non-Christian countries to spread the Gospel, to bring Christ to the world, to root out evil and show all peoples how to live a life for God. Now that Christian countries are living contrary to God (at least in the sense of contraception) how do we ever expect to bring the Good News? If we are providing a poor example, not living according to the natural Law of God which we claim as part of our salvation, non-Christians will think we are just a joke.

**…Exactly! What does that tell you about people who practice NFP? How does that not show you a difference between contraception and NFP, between the overall mindset of those who use or advocate contraception and those use or advocate NFP?/**QUOTE]

Yes but NFP itself isn;t what makes people think differently. It just happens to be that most people who use NFP are likely to be those who are opposed to abortion in the first place. Someone who is opposed to abortion who decides to use condoms for instance isn;t going to suddenly become prochoice and have an abortion just because they decided to use condoms.

 

[alfred14]

50% of the abortions in the U.S happen because contraceptives fail. The Supreme Court had good cause for their statement. .

acording to this statement that means that if you took away contraceptives abortions would double.

 

[Warrior1979]

@EternalJade: You said if we are to contribute the increase of abortion to anything then it should be casual sex. Well I wanted to ask you what you thought caused the increase in casual sex: Hmmm maybe contraceptives.

Casual sex has been going on for a long time. Here’s an example of how it was handled prior to contraception, by one of the Founding Fathers:

swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/51-fra.html

 

[Warrior1979]

NFP is also used to increase the chance of pregnancy. When was the last time you heard a contraceptive advertise that fact about their product?

I haven’t, just like I don’t hear the Church advertising NFP for getting pregnant.

 

[joshrp]

I’m probably not the best at explaining it clearly, but I can certainly point you to a starting point to read and then you can post questions/comments for clarification.

Here are links to sections in the Catechism that describe the unity/unitive aspect:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P54.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P55.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P86.HTM

It’s alot to read all at once, but this will help you understand enough to be able to ask more detailed questions (or it may just completely clarify it for you and you can help ME get a better grasp on it ).

I’ve read these sections several times. Honestly, I’m not all too thrilled about reading about sexuality, because it honestly gives me tempting thoughts. I’ve seriously had lustful thoughts while reading something like John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility or the catechisms teachings on sexuality and marriage. How should I deal with this? Should I just avoid the whole topic altogether?