Well, “natural” in the sense of “occurring in nature” has nothing to do with it. “Natural” in the sense of “according to the nature of something” does.
This is a very good point. We can debate NFP in another thread if someone wishes. Whether NFP is contraception or not, there has still yet to be anything said to legitimize contraception.
This is because the term “natural” gets thrown around for all sorts of things today. The meaning of the term is explained in the argument and therefore the word suffices its purpose which is to relay a meaning. The real question that you need to answer instead of trying to dodge the discussion and come up with excuses is “Do things have an inherent nature to them?”
On the one hand you get to experience the pleasure of sex while avoiding children and on the other you do not during each act. Contraception is like a con game with God.Honestly, I feel like it’s kinda giving off the same idea - that it is ok to avoid children by using knowledge of the cycle, but not ok to avoid children by using a condom because one is natural and the other is not. it’s kind of a more fancy was of saying it though, but I think the bottom line is the same.
… And I’ve heard this argument before too, ironically by the same people who had prior claimed that natural vs artificial has nothing to do with the immorality of contraception.
So I don’t know.
If you want more feedback, I guess you could ask other folks around here who struggle with understanding this issue and see if it was a convincing enough argument for them.
On the one hand you get to experience the pleasure of sex while avoiding children and on the other you do not during each act. Contraception is like a con game with God. Its like when you give your kids rules to follow and they go to every extent possible to stretch the rules. “yeah I’m open to procreation during this act God…don’t worry about this condom…” The question of being open to children in a marriage as a whole and being open to children in each act of sexual intercourse are two distinct questions that contraception proponents love to skew together.Honestly, I feel like it’s kinda giving off the same idea - that it is ok to avoid children by using knowledge of the cycle, but not ok to avoid children by using a condom because one is natural and the other is not. it’s kind of a more fancy was of saying it though, but I think the bottom line is the same.
… And I’ve heard this argument before too, ironically by the same people who had prior claimed that natural vs artificial has nothing to do with the immorality of contraception.
So I don’t know.
If you want more feedback, I guess you could ask other folks around here who struggle with understanding this issue and see if it was a convincing enough argument for them.
Yup… and from there is starts all over again. Eventually it just goes in circles without actually getting anywhere. I have seen this happen A LOT.
This is a whole interesting discussion in and of itself. What if the couple didn’t want have children on their own, but chose to adopt and foster? Obviously, their only choice is to have a Josephite marriage, since because they choice not to procreate naturally they must throw the unitive aspect of sex out the window also.
Perhaps the discussion is going nowhere because you are not addressing the salient issues.
Errr, no… again,
Procreation doesn’t have to result every time. It doesn’t even have to be able to result for that particular couple, either at that particular point in time (due to natural infertility) or at all (due to chronic infertility). It is merely the case that the couple must have sex in a manner consistent with the end of procreation – what the Church calls an act “open to life” – whether or not life results.
but there is no contraception that is 100 percent effective, other then abstince. i know a family who had 3 kids all while on the pill. so you cant play a con game with God, if he wants you to have kids you will. you cant trick him or sneak around his plans. so if the only reason contraception is bad is because your not letting God give you kids that doesnt make any sence
Note that the argument as I presented it is entirely secular; it makes no mention of God.
Refusing to drive a Toyota is analogous, not to eating fat and taking an Orlistat, but to abstaining from eating fat.
Since I don’t think inducing a sneeze for pleasure is sinful, this is for me a reductio of the argument.
Yes, the analogy is rough, but you see my point. In any event I suspect the proscription would be that taking Orlistat for illicit reasons (i.e., so you can gorge on fatty foods without consequence or starve yourself into a stick figure for vanity’s sake) is sinful but for legitimate medical reasons is not.
Well, again, I have no idea what snuff is. I’m assuming, since it appears to be a tobacco product, that people take it for pleasure and the sneeze just happens to result; ergo, nothing about sneezing would be sinful in that case.
That is an assertion, not an argument. Do you have anything to say to defend your outlandish claim that adopting couples must never have sex against what natural law *actually *teaches?Err, yes.
Thanks for your response.
If they don’t want to have their own children, obviously sex (including NFP) is out of the question, otherwise they run the risk of having their own children. There is no way around it.
So, If they choose not to have children and choose not to have sex in order to avoid children 100%, and instead adopt children, how does that fit into you position that contraception is not contrary to natural law?If they don’t want to have their own children, obviously sex (including NFP) is out of the question, otherwise they run the risk of having their own children. There is no way around it.
So if a generous couple chooses to raise abandoned children, rather than their own, they’ll have to keep their pants on.
One ought to be in possession of the truth if one is to raise a family successfully.
OK, fair enough; I understood you as saying that natural law forbids couples from having sex unless they intend to procreate.If they don’t want to have their own children, obviously sex (including NFP) is out of the question, otherwise they run the risk of having their own children. There is no way around it.
So if a generous couple chooses to raise abandoned children, rather than their own, they’ll have to keep their pants on.
If I understand correctly, you are asking me to point out a flaw in the logic against contraception?
I’m sure Warrior is a wonderful father and husband.
