The Case Against Contraception

[Nate13]

What exactly is NFP? With all the charts, and mucous measurement, it doesn’t seem all that natural at all. Natural to me means “Hey, honey, let’s have some kids.”

Haha yet again the abuse of the word “natural”. The OP should have posted this in the philosophy discussion board.

 

[Nate13]

NFP seems to be the result of someone who is thinking to themselves, “I really want sex, but I don’t want kids. What do I do? Aha, I have an idea.” Are we this neurotic. We act like we are having crack cocaine withdrawals when we don’t have any sex.

No its the understanding that sex has two purposes, unitive and procreative. The problems arise when a person attempts to pull these two purposes apart. I showed how these two purposes are arrived at by looking at the passage in Genesis that says “the two become one flesh” in past threads as the Church teaches.

I really don’t understand why its so hard to see contraception is wrong. Its been around for thousands of years and has been condemned by the Church as long as it has been around. Now all of sudden we have people that are so much smarter than all of those in the past… Sex isn’t something new to the 20th century folks. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

 

[joshrp]

No its the understanding that sex has two purposes, unitive and procreative. The problems arise when a person attempts to pull these two purposes apart. I showed how these two purposes are arrived at by looking at the passage in Genesis that says “the two become one flesh” in past threads as the Church teaches.

I really don’t understand why its so hard to see contraception is wrong. Its been around for thousands of years and has been condemned by the Church as long as it has been around. Now all of sudden we have people that are so much smarter than all of those in the past… Sex isn’t something new to the 20th century folks. There is no need to reinvent the wheel.

I’m really trying to figure this out. So bear with me. I am against contraception. I am not sure if I am for or against NFP. I’m trying to figure out the true meaning of human sexuality. Now what about this idea: “If you don’t want kids, don’t have an orgasm.”

That seems totally silly, but it just seems important. We don’t ever talk about the orgasm in Catholic circles, do we. If we want to talk about the purpose of sex, we have to talk about what the purpose of the orgasm is. It has a function in that it is the means by which the male seed meets the female egg and they fertilize to create a new human being. You don’t need to have an orgasm for a married man and woman to be united.

Ok, I don’t want to talk about this too long. Honestly, my head is spinning right now trying to figure this out.

Joshua

 

[joshrp]

I’m really trying to figure this out. So bear with me. I am against contraception. I am not sure if I am for or against NFP. I’m trying to figure out the true meaning of human sexuality. Now what about this idea: “If you don’t want kids, don’t have an orgasm.”

That seems totally silly, but it just seems important. We don’t ever talk about the orgasm in Catholic circles, do we. If we want to talk about the purpose of sex, we have to talk about what the purpose of the orgasm is. It has a function in that it is the means by which the male seed meets the female egg and they fertilize to create a new human being. You don’t need to have an orgasm for a married man and woman to be united.

Ok, I don’t want to talk about this too long. Honestly, my head is spinning right now trying to figure this out.

Joshua

I feel really silly right now. I can’t believe I said all that.

 

[joshrp]

I feel really silly right now. I can’t believe I said all that.

Does a man really have to have an orgasm whenever he has sex. I mean, haven’t woman been going for a long time in the history of mankind with some of them never having an orgasm no matter how much sex they have? Why are men so selfish? Why don’t you focus on giving the woman all the orgasms and keep your load in until you want to have a kid. It would probably be more enjoyable that way. Usually, once you have an orgasm it’s like “Damn, it’s over now.”

That’s what I think abou this whole thing. NFP should be about having some self-control until you want to have the kid.

 

[desertlibrarian]

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.

Sorry, I was probably a bit too terse. My argument was that since choosing not to drive a Toyota is analogous to abstaining from fat rather than to taking Orlistat and eating fat, the analogy doesn’t prove the acceptability of the latter. So it still seems that on the principles of your original argument, Orlistat would be the moral equivalent of The Pill.

sw85:

Medication is tricky, anyway, because it is less easy to nail down its telos. Many over-the-counter sleep-aids, for instance, are really just antihistamines.

As far as I can tell, Orlistat seems to have been designed and is currently taken for the purpose of blocking the natural digestive processes. Furthermore, isn’t it the telos of these natural human processes, and not the telos of artifacts, which is the issue? I haven’t heard anyone argue that interfering with the telos of artifacts is per se sinful. If I use a book as kindling, it’s bad for the book but doesn’t necessarily make me a bad person.

sw85:

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.

You’re probably right that most people who take snuff do so for the nicotine, but if we imagined someone who took it for the sake of the sneeze, would this be sinful? Or leave aside the snuff–imagine someone who tickled their nostrils to induce a sneeze. (The parallel to masturbation is clear.)

 

[joshrp]

Sorry, I was probably a bit too terse. My argument was that since choosing not to drive a Toyota is analogous to abstaining from fat rather than to taking Orlistat and eating fat, the analogy doesn’t prove the acceptability of the latter. So it still seems that on the principles of your original argument, Orlistat would be the moral equivalent of The Pill.

As far as I can tell, Orlistat seems to have been designed and is currently taken for the purpose of blocking the natural digestive processes. Furthermore, isn’t it the telos of these natural human processes, and not the telos of artifacts, which is the issue? I haven’t heard anyone argue that interfering with the telos of artifacts is per se sinful. If I use a book as kindling, it’s bad for the book but doesn’t necessarily make me a bad person.

You’re probably right that most people who take snuff do so for the nicotine, but if we imagined someone who took it for the sake of the sneeze, would this be sinful? Or leave aside the snuff–imagine someone who tickled their nostrils to induce a sneeze. (The parallel to masturbation is clear.)

What the Hell are you people talking about? Is this Aristotle on crack cocaine, taking hits of pot?

 

[Debora123]

For Deborah:

Would you read this book?

Man, Woman, and the Meaning of Love God’s plan for love, marriage, intimacy, and the family

Dietrich von Hildebrand

It might help you understand the Church’s teachings better.

I appreciate the thought, and it is very normal for forum members here to assume I don’t understand sex and marriage if I haven’t been able to grasp the concept of contraception.

The truth is I am very well versed on the whole thing. I own both books written by Mary Beth Bonacci, one of her videos, and have heard her speak twice. I also own “Good News about Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West, and have also heard him speak. I’ve also heard Tim Staple’s speak.

I understand the meaning of human sexuality, and have pretty much heard all arguments out there about contraception. Thank you though.

 

[Debora123]

NFP seems to be the result of someone who is thinking to themselves, “I really want sex, but I don’t want kids. What do I do? Aha, I have an idea.”

Yes.

Exact same thing people who use condoms think.

 

[Debora123]

Thank you for actually admitting that NFP is licit and contraception is not. Usually that does it for me even if I struggle with the logic of it. What gets me however is that you are trying to equate (not compare, but equate) abstinence to a condom? Abstinence has always been a licit and contraception has always been illicit.

Oh give me a break!

Abstinence is NOT the only part of NFP. If it was, I would honestly at least understand.

NFP is the means of purposely making it so that you can have sex without the consequences of having a kid by using knowledge of a natural cycle rather than by using a condom.

 

[joshrp]

Oh give me a break!

Abstinence is NOT the only part of NFP. If it was, I would honestly at least understand.

NFP is the means of purposely making it so that you can have sex without the consequences of having a kid.

Hi Deborah,

I’m kind of confused. Are you for or against NFP?

Joshua

 

[Debora123]

Hi Deborah,

I’m kind of confused. Are you for or against NFP?

Joshua

I don’t have a problem with NFP, but I don’t have a problem with condoms either. I don’t understand how one person can be for one and against the other. The way I see it, either you’re against both, or for both. Because they both do the same thing. They are both the means of purposely having sex without wanting to make babies.

The only difference is one uses knowledge of the fertility cycle, the other uses a rubber.

 

[joshrp]

I don’t have a problem with NFP, but I don’t have a problem with condoms either. I don’t understand how one person can be for one and against the other. The way I see it, either you’re against both, or for both. Because they both do the same thing. They are both the means of purposely having sex without wanting to make babies.

The only difference is one uses knowledge of the fertility cycle, the other uses a rubber.

What do you think about the instances where a child is not wanted, and one is conceived by accident? Should this be avoided, do you think, or is that something that is okay if it happens?

 

[Debora123]

What do you think about the instances where a child is not wanted, and one is conceived by accident? Should this be avoided, do you think, or is that something that is okay if it happens?

If 2 people are unmarried they should abstain from all sexual activity, and of course, this will prevent an unwanted pregnancy from occurring.

If it happens, it is the will of God, and that child needs to be welcomed into the world with love and open arms. If the mother is not able to care for the child, she can place the child in a loving home through adoption. Abortion is never ok.

 

[joshrp]

If 2 people are unmarried they should abstain from all sexual activity, and of course, this will prevent an unwanted pregnancy from occurring.

If it happens, it is the will of God, and that child needs to be welcomed into the world with love and open arms. If the mother is not able to care for the child, she can place the child in a loving home through adoption. Abortion is never ok.

Something is bothering me about this. I don’t know what it is.

 

[louis91766]

Although artificial contraception is condemned as a mortal sin by the Church, nevertheless, a large number of American Catholic women are on the pill, according to public statistics. Why do so many women disregard official Church teaching?

 

[sw85]

I don’t really know what is meant by “consistent with the nature of.”

We do plenty of things that are not “consistent with the nature of…” this is just really really weird.

I explain it all in the OP.

No offense, but I really don’t like these analogies. They are very strange, and always compare 2 extremely different things to each other. I really don’t think they help anyone who struggles with this issue to understand it. ("Hmmm… we cant sit on a couch and use it as a car to drive somewhere. Ok, NOW I get it! )

Sure, creating babies is part of their function. No one here is saying they weren’t. The point?

The point is that sin consists in acting contrary to one’s nature, or using one’s faculties in a manner contrary to their respective ends. Again, refer to the OP.

You are not denying the nature of a person when you wear a condom, anymore than when you give them medicine for their stress headache, or clothes to cover up their natural bodies, or makeup to make themselves look more attractive.

Again, this is a natural vs artificial argument, which comes off as extremely flawed because nothing else “artificial” is illicit.

Just MHO.

Again, refer to the OP. :-\

I can understand that this is difficult to comprehend… but I wish you would not conflate your lack of understanding with objective irrationality. Not understanding a Church teaching is hardly a sufficient basis to rebel against it.

What exactly is NFP? With all the charts, and mucous measurement, it doesn’t seem all that natural at all. Natural to me means “Hey, honey, let’s have some kids.”

See the OP. “Natural” does not mean “occurring in nature.”

 

[sw85]

Sorry, I was probably a bit too terse. My argument was that since choosing not to drive a Toyota is analogous to abstaining from fat rather than to taking Orlistat and eating fat, the analogy doesn’t prove the acceptability of the latter. So it still seems that on the principles of your original argument, Orlistat would be the moral equivalent of The Pill.

Yes, but there is nothing illicit about the pill itself – only when taken for the purposes of contracepting.

As far as I can tell, Orlistat seems to have been designed and is currently taken for the purpose of blocking the natural digestive processes. Furthermore, isn’t it the telos of these natural human processes, and not the telos of artifacts, which is the issue? I haven’t heard anyone argue that interfering with the telos of artifacts is per se sinful. If I use a book as kindling, it’s bad for the book but doesn’t necessarily make me a bad person.

We’re not talking about interfering with the telos of an object here but whether or not the object interferes with the operation of a human faculty – more precisely, whether one takes it for the purpose of interfering with the operation of a human faculty. Hence why the Pill can be taken for some reasons (i.e., controlling hormonal disorders) but not for others (i.e., contraception).

You’re probably right that most people who take snuff do so for the nicotine, but if we imagined someone who took it for the sake of the sneeze, would this be sinful? Or leave aside the snuff–imagine someone who tickled their nostrils to induce a sneeze. (The parallel to masturbation is clear.)

Again, I suppose that relates to the end of sneezing and thus the reason why one is doing so. If you’re inducing a sneeze to clear your nasal passages, nothing has been done wrong. But to elevate the pleasure associated with an end and making it an end in itself is, yes, sinful.

I’m surprised you leapt to the example of sneezing by the way, when the much more relevant example of eating is readily at hand. Our digestive system exists to provide nutrition; food tastes good for that reason; to treat the tastiness of food as an end in itself is a sin (gluttony, e.g., barfing so that one can taste more food). Are you genuinely asking this as a question or are you simply positing an absurd scenario in the hopes that my response will discredit an entire swath of Church teachings?

What the Hell are you people talking about? Is this Aristotle on crack cocaine, taking hits of pot?

A good place to start would be the original post… which it appears very few people in this thread have *actually *read.

I put so much work into it, too.

Although artificial contraception is condemned as a mortal sin by the Church, nevertheless, a large number of American Catholic women are on the pill, according to public statistics. Why do so many women disregard official Church teaching?

Presumably because they’re ignorant of the rationale behind the Church’s teachings, because the Church (evidently) does a terrible job of catechizing people.

I suppose it is the case for some that they simply wish to gratify their passions without consequence.

 

[Calliso]

Honestly, this makes infinitely MORE sense to me than the whole “NFP is ok but condoms are not” mentality.

This, while I don’t agree, I can actually UNDERSTAND.

Yeah I might not agree either but I can understand and find that view at least more consistant and sensable.

 

[Calliso]

What exactly is NFP? With all the charts, and mucous measurement, it doesn’t seem all that natural at all. Natural to me means “Hey, honey, let’s have some kids.”

Yeah like I said before how natural modern NFP really is is rather debatable.