The future of conception

[Sophia]

This is pure science fiction. So if you don’t like thought experiments, stop right here. I would not want to disturb your “wa” (if you know that Japanese concept. Loosely translated as “inner peace and harmony”.)

The question is simple:

Suppose that the advancement of technology will lead to the possibility that conception will need not just the usual marital embrace, but also an expressed will or desire from both parents-to-be. So the copulation cannot lead to unwanted and unplanned conception. There would be no artificial “barrier” the embrace would be consummated inside the vagina. However, the lack of desire to conceive would be sufficient to prevent pregnancy.

Would you support this advancement? (I am sure many will consider this advancement “impossible”. So let’s suppose you said it, and be done with this attempt to derail a possible conversation.)

 

[TechieGuy]

The tech you describe is simply 100% effective contraception, so this would fall under the current prohibitions.

On edit:

If you are asking if I would support such tech being available and used by those who do not feel the need to conform to Catholic teachings, then yes I would support the use of this tech over something like the IUD which prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.

 

[QContinuum]

However, the lack of desire to conceive would be sufficient to prevent pregnancy.

My understanding is that NFP is not considered to be contraceptive, even though the couple engages in sex while wanting to avoid conception. The defense is that they don’t have to want to conceive each and every time - they just can’t use a barrier, either chemical or physical, that blocks conception.

If that is true, then I don’t see how a lack of desire to conceive would be wrong here. If one has sex and desires conception, good. If one has sex and does not desire conception - same as many NFP couples now. Every act of sex, I’m told, does not need to, result in conception.

The question I have is what happens if purposes are crossed, and one wants to conceive while the other doesn’t?

 

[QContinuum]

By the way, interesting thought experiment, OP.

 

[TechieGuy]

My understanding is that NFP is licit because the woman’s natural biology is observed. The tech would not be a natural use.

 

[QContinuum]

My understanding is that NFP is licit because the woman’s natural biology is observed. The tech would not be a natural use.

Suppose it is a germ line genetic enhancement? And is therefore part of one’s natural abilities to have that level of control over one’s reproductive organs?

 

[ascetic]

My understanding of church teaching is that the biological human sexual response is for unitive and procreative purposes and that any free exercise of it must be open to both purposes. It would block the later. I could be remembering wrong but haven’t read or even thought about it in a long time. I’m sure someone will correct my magisterial memory if I am.

 

[QContinuum]

According to the OP, they would be open to it. They just wouldn’t actively desire to conceive.

Many NFP couples practice just such a method because they also do not desire to conceive at certain intervals.

Are they sinning?

 

[ascetic]

Heck, I don’t know. Like I said, I haven’t read about it in a while. TBH, I don’t read about it a lot since I’m not in that situation, so I’ll probably never know, but she said it was a thought experiment, so there was my contribution. Techguy said something above about it. Dunno if that helps any, but it sounds like what you’re saying. Check it out.

 

[QContinuum]

Fair enough. My questions are simply to tease this idea out further.

 

[Sophia]

The question I have is what happens if purposes are crossed, and one wants to conceive while the other doesn’t?

It would be enough to avoid the pregnancy. After all the best outcome for the “upcoming” child is that both parties would want to become parents, that the child would have a full family to await and expect her. This method, if it would become feasible, would eliminate the random pregnancy, which either or both members of the party would wish to avoid.

Very interesting. So it is not enough to follow the “letter of the law”, you need to accept the “spirit” of the law, too. Definitely against the NFP method.

My understanding is that NFP is licit because the woman’s natural biology is observed. The tech would not be a natural use.

The biology is not affected. The whole point is that this method would “respect” all the necessary biological aspect of the procedure. It would be “open” to conception.

 

[blackforest]

Would you support this advancement?

No.

Despite the CAF obsession with is-this-or-that-sex-thing-a-mortal-sin, in its right context, sex is wonderful! I’d hate to give it up.

It doesn’t just incentivize reproduction. It can strengthen and add excitement, romance, and happiness to a marriage.

There - I said it. Not that I’ve read all 1 million + posts on CAF, but I’ve never seen anybody around here ever speak of actually enjoying sex.

 

[TechieGuy]

Suppose it is a germ line genetic enhancement? And is therefore part of one’s natural abilities to have that level of control over one’s reproductive organs?

That’s a good question, it wouldn’t be artificial then

 

[Anicette]

No.

That is submission to life and bodies to subjective desires.

There is no virtue in that. It is still an artificial barrier.

 

[VeryBlessed]

I’m not at all sure that it is wise to strip the procreative aspect from sex in a way that God did not already do. We reshape what He has made to our own detriment. I see rampant divorce and fatherless, abortion and even the homosexual movement as consequences of our massive societal embrace of contraception. God made sex with two components, pleasure and procreation. When we strip the procreative out of it, then in our societal mindset sex is only about pleasure. Abortion proves that we will literally do anything to have the pleasure of sex free of any consequences - apparently the pill’s 90% effectiveness rate wasn’t high enough for us. It’s chilling. Bottom line, God knew what he was doing. I think we have enough societal circumstantial evidence to prove that re-making sex is not a good idea.

 

[QContinuum]

When we strip the procreative out of it, then in our societal mindset sex is only about pleasure.

What the OP proposed isn’t stripping procreation from sex. Functionality remains fully intact. Rather, it becomes dependent upon conscious will rather than autonomic biology.

 

[Benadam]

If it doesn’t allow for the will of God apart from the parents it isn’t open to life.

 

[VeryBlessed]

“Rather, it becomes dependent upon conscious will rather than autonomic biology.” I see your point, but I think we already have that, albeit in less elegant & efficient ways than the OP proposed. I just don’t think we’re handling it well as a society so far.

 

[QContinuum]

I see your point, but I think we already have that, albeit in less elegant & efficient ways than the OP proposed. I just don’t think we’re handling it well as a society so far.

Those ways - If you’re referring to hormonal birth control - have various side effects and health risks. Barrier methods are flatly condemned by the CC.

This method is not even a “method,” strictly speaking. It would be an innate ability to decide while having sex, whether to conceive.

 

[Sophia]

No.

Despite the CAF obsession with is-this-or-that-sex-thing-a-mortal-sin, in its right context, sex is wonderful! I’d hate to give it up.

It doesn’t just incentivize reproduction. It can strengthen and add excitement, romance, and happiness to a marriage.

There - I said it. Not that I’ve read all 1 million + posts on CAF, but I’ve never seen anybody around here ever speaks of actually enjoying sex.

I don’t understand you. The whole point of this thought experiment is to be able to enjoy sex, without the side effect of unwanted pregnancy.

Bottom line, God knew what he was doing.

Sure. Let’s analyze it. God allows us to perform all things. He knew what he was doing. Therefore anything and everything we are “allowed” to do falls under God’s explicit or permissive will. Whatever God explicitly does not want us to do he could prevent us from doing. This can be applied to everything, from the Holocaust to artificial birth control. Summary in one sentence: “Whatever God allows, he does not object to.”