the pull out method?

[exoflare]

I am not sure why you give the “thumbs up” sign and then argue against me.

He/she does this on all their posts. They attempt to draw your attention away from the lack of actual substance in the post with all the unnecessary emoticons, red lettering and failed haiku format.

 

[Curious_Seed]

He/she does this on all their posts. They attempt to draw your attention away from the lack of actual substance in the post with all the unnecessary emoticons, red lettering and failed haiku format.

Evidently my “attempt to draw your attention away” has clearly failed, in your case.

 

[Nate13]

Evidently my “attempt to draw your attention away” has clearly failed, in your case.

I think someone should stop drinking and posting on Catholic Answers at the same time

I’ll repeat it again for you since you ignored it before. Contracepting describes how an act of sex is committed. Thus you cannot call a period of abstinence “contracepting”. It describes how you perform a sexual act. If a sexual act is not being committed as in the case of abstinence it makes no sense to say its contraceptive lol.

 

[Curious_Seed]

That is probably not something Fulton Sheen would say.

 

[Nate13]

That is probably not something Fulton Sheen would say.

Your right he would have been more direct and probably wouldn’t have wasted his time with you to begin with

 

[Curious_Seed]

Your right he would have been more direct and probably wouldn’t have wasted his time with you to begin with

It is one thing to surmise what Archbishop Sheen would not say, but quite another to believe you know what he would say.

Though, of course, he would know your grammar is incorrect, and possibly point it out to you, as well, if he thought you would benefit by it, and not be a waste of his time.

 

[Corki]

I think someone should stop drinking and posting on Catholic Answers at the same time

I’ll repeat it again for you since you ignored it before. Contracepting describes how an act of sex is committed. Thus you cannot call a period of abstinence “contracepting”. It describes how you perform a sexual act. If a sexual act is not being committed as in the case of abstinence it makes no sense to say its contraceptive lol.

To piggyback onto Nate’s explanation.

CuriousSeed,

If you really think that not having sex is contraception, then you would have to say that a couple who abstains from sex before marriage is contracepting, a couple where one spouse is deployed is contracepting, or having a spouse too ill for relations is contracepting. That’s clearly a misuse of the word “contraception” as is your attempt to apply it to NFP.

 

[Curious_Seed]

To piggyback onto Nate’s explanation.

CuriousSeed,

If you really think that not having sex is contraception, then you would have to say that a couple who abstains from sex before marriage is contracepting, a couple where one spouse is deployed is contracepting, or having a spouse too ill for relations is contracepting. That’s clearly a misuse of the word “contraception” as is your attempt to apply it to NFP.

:tiphat:

Contraception is the intent, between partners in a sexual relationship, to not unite their gametes during sexual activity.

The means of attaining that intent is contraceptive, whether by product or practice.

If one could become infertile by reciting the alphabet backward, and then fertile once again by reciting the alphabet forward, would it not be considered contraceptive, if one’s sexual activity were so accorded?

Likewise, if one were infertile on Mondays only, would it not be considered contraceptive, if one’s sexual activity were respectful of that?

The sexual relationship between husband and wife necessitates a decision to be one of contraception, or not, when they are sexually active.

If their intent is to be contraceptive, they may recite the alphabet backward, select Mondays, follow NFP, install IUDs, or whatever they believe will prevent conception.

 

[Corki]

Contraception is the intent, between partners in a sexual relationship, to not unite their gametes during sexual activity.

Language again. Contraception is an act, not an intent. It is what occurs during the sexual relationship, to render the sex infertile - not what occurs when a couple are not having sex.

The means of attaining that intent is contraceptive, whether by product or practice.

Yes, contraception is a means. It is not the only means that a couple might use to affect the size of their family but it is one means.

If one could become infertile by reciting the alphabet backward, and then fertile once again by reciting the alphabet forward, would it not be considered contraceptive, if one’s sexual activity were so accorded?

If you did it while having sex, in order to make the act sterile, it would be contraceptive. However, you are confusing terms. When a person is infertile, whether intentionally or not, this does not mean that they are contracepting. For example, a person who has a vasectomy has committed a grave sin but if he were to have sex with his wife, they aren’t contracepting any more than a couple who is naturally sterile is. It’s a different sin if you seek to make yourself sterile.

Likewise, if one were infertile on Mondays only, would it not be considered contraceptive, if one’s sexual activity were respectful of that?

No, that’s not contraception.

The sexual relationship between husband and wife necessitates a decision to be one of contraception, or not, when they are sexually active.

Only if they act on that decision to render the sex act infertile.

If their intent is to be contraceptive, they may recite the alphabet backward, select Mondays, follow NFP, install IUDs, or whatever they believe will prevent conception.

To follow NFP or to select infertile Mondays is not an intent to contracept. It **may be **an example of the, so called, “contraceptive intent”. But “contraceptive intent” involves using NFP simply to avoid another child without a just reason. That’s a matter for the couple to discuss with their spiritual advisor. Simply using NFP does not mean that one has a “contraceptive intent”. You can not infer the intent from the method.

 

[etmom]

:tiphat:

If their intent is to be contraceptive, they may recite the alphabet backward, select Mondays, follow NFP, install IUDs, or whatever they believe will prevent conception.

Then exclusively breastfeeding is also “using” contraceptives, since it induces infertility and many use the breastfeeding period to space their children between pregnancies.

 

[Curious_Seed]

Language again. Contraception is an act, not an intent. It is what occurs during the sexual relationship, to render the sex infertile - not what occurs when a couple are not having sex.

Yes, contraception is a means. It is not the only means that a couple might use to affect the size of their family but it is one means.

If you did it while having sex, in order to make the act sterile, it would be contraceptive. However, you are confusing terms. When a person is infertile, whether intentionally or not, this does not mean that they are contracepting. For example, a person who has a vasectomy has committed a grave sin but if he were to have sex with his wife, they aren’t contracepting any more than a couple who is naturally sterile is. It’s a different sin if you seek to make yourself sterile.

No, that’s not contraception.

Only if they act on that decision to render the sex act infertile.

To follow NFP or to select infertile Mondays is not an intent to contracept. It **may be **an example of the, so called, “contraceptive intent”. But “contraceptive intent” involves using NFP simply to avoid another child without a just reason. That’s a matter for the couple to discuss with their spiritual advisor. Simply using NFP does not mean that one has a “contraceptive intent”. You can not infer the intent from the method.

:tiphat:

Contraception is a condition resulting from the intention to not conceive.

No intention equals no contraception, but for randomness.

If contraception is thought to be restricted to only what is able to transpire during the sex act, then well and good.

If birth control is the term to be used, for any restriction before the sex act, then well and good.

But, for me, employed restrictions are contraceptions.

To me, choosing not to conceive by selecting certain days of the month is denying the way for life, as much as, choosing not to conceive by selecting certain implants to deny the way for life.

Both are employed with the intention to deny life from occurring, both are contraceptive.

 

[Nate13]

:tiphat:

Contraception is a condition resulting from the intention to not conceive.

No intention equals no contraception, but for randomness.

If contraception is thought to be restricted to only what is able to transpire during the sex act, then well and good.

If birth control is the term to be used, for any restriction before the sex act, then well and good.

But, for me, employed restrictions are contraceptions.

To me, choosing not to conceive by selecting certain days of the month is denying the way for life, as much as, choosing not to conceive by selecting certain implants to deny the way for life.

Both are employed with the intention to deny life from occurring, both are contraceptive.

What is the difference between letting someone who is terminally ill die a natural death and killing them at their request 6 months before then to prevent them from having to suffer that 6 months of pointless pain and suffering? Would you also argue that both of these two options must be the same morally since the consequences are the same i.e death?

 

[Curious_Seed]

Then exclusively breastfeeding is also “using” contraceptives, since it induces infertility and many use the breastfeeding period to space their children between pregnancies.

:tiphat:

Contraception is not restricted to activities of the sex act.

Contraception is any means, method, product, practice, or design employed with the intention of not conceiving, preparatory to, following, and/or during the sex act.

Doing what you do [before, during, after], with the intention to not conceive, makes what you do contraceptive, though, of course, not necessarily effective.

 

[Nate13]

:tiphat:

Contraception is not restricted to activities of the sex act.

Contraception is any means, method, product, practice, or design employed with the intention of not conceiving, preparatory to, following, and/or during the sex act.

Doing what you do [before, during, after], with the intention to not conceive, makes what you do contraceptive, though, of course, not necessarily effective.

That definition has nothing to do with why the Church condemns the use of contraception to prevent pregnancy. The Church does not condemn the intention to prevent pregnancy. It also doesn’t condemn the intention of wanting to feed your family, but that doesn’t mean both stealing the food and earning a wage to pay for it are morally equivalent.

Why the Church condemns contracepting from the Catechism:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

Thus every act of sex while using NFP is a complete gift of the spouses at that point and time. When they are unable to do so in good faith, they don’t have sex and commit a lie. This is based in a belief that sex between a couple is supposed to be the ultimate gift of self between the two persons united in marriage. This belief is based in natural law as well as divine revelation in the Bible. The Church teaches that if you are incapable of performing this act as it has been designed to be performed (a complete gift of your entire self…including your fertility at that point and time whatever it may be…) don’t have sex and commit a lie/contradiction by the use of a contraceptive.

 

[Corki]

CS,

I’m not going to use the quote function because I am sick of having to edit your posts. However, if you really believe that breastfeeding and using an IUD are morally comparable, you are probably beyond any help from this forum.

 

[Curious_Seed]

What is the difference between letting someone who is terminally ill die a natural death and killing them at their request 6 months before then to prevent them from having to suffer that 6 months of pointless pain and suffering? Would you also argue that both of these two options must be the same morally since the consequences are the same i.e death?

:tiphat:

I am not sure of your premises or purposes.

If one were to die without aid, would that be the same morally as to die with aid?

If that is what you are asking, I think not.

More interestingly, is it moral to take one’s life prematurely?

 

[Nate13]

:tiphat:

I am not sure of your premises or purposes.

If one were to die without aid, would that be the same morally as to die with aid?

If that is what you are asking, I think not.

More interestingly, is it moral to take one’s life prematurely?

Here is the situation I’m describing:

You have a terminally ill patient that is going to die in 6 months no doubt about it. They will be confined to a hospital bed that entire time and will undergo extreme suffering and pain till the point they die. Of course they will be given the pain killers and such that they can be given to limit suffering until they die naturally, but in a secular sense their life will be rather pointless during this time.

The other option is this patient asks you to kill them now and you do so. What is the real moral difference between that and waiting 6 months till they die naturally?

My point in asking this is that it would seem to me you should see these two options as being the same morally considering the perspective with which you look on contraception and NFP. It may very well be you believe that which is fine, because at least you will be consistent in the consequential outlook you take and complete disregard for the idea of natural law

 

[Curious_Seed]

That definition has nothing to do with why the Church condemns the use of contraception to prevent pregnancy. The Church does not condemn the intention to prevent pregnancy. It also doesn’t condemn the intention of wanting to feed your family, but that doesn’t mean both stealing the food and earning a wage to pay for it are morally equivalent.

Why the Church condemns contracepting from the Catechism:

Thus every act of sex while using NFP is a complete gift of the spouses at that point and time. When they are unable to do so in good faith, they don’t have sex and commit a lie. This is based in a belief that sex between a couple is supposed to be the ultimate gift of self between the two persons united in marriage. This belief is based in natural law as well as divine revelation in the Bible. The Church teaches that if you are incapable of performing this act as it has been designed to be performed (a complete gift of your entire self…including your fertility at that point and time whatever it may be…) don’t have sex and commit a lie/contradiction by the use of a contraceptive.

:tiphat:

Although we do not agree with each other, I am impressed with the sheer extent of your reasoning.

A great deal of work there, thank you!

 

[davidv]

:tiphat:

I am not sure of your premises or purposes.

If one were to die without aid, would that be the same morally as to die with aid?

If that is what you are asking, I think not.

More interestingly, is it moral to take one’s life prematurely?

Off top.
The Topic is “Re: the pull out method”

Morality is determine by three criteria:

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action. The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

Responsible parenting requires proper spacing of births.

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

NFP is a morally acceptable means of spacing births if just reasons exist.

From American Heritage Dictionary:

Contraception:
Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.

Abstinence is not a sexual practice in the above definition.

Edit: Numbers is bold are articles numbers from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[Curious_Seed]

CS,

I’m not going to use the quote function because I am sick of having to edit your posts. However, if you really believe that breastfeeding and using an IUD are morally comparable, you are probably beyond any help from this forum.

:tiphat:

I am sorry our discussion has frustrated you.

From your comment to me about breastfeeding and IUDs, we clearly have failed to communicate our differences with each other.

No, I am not beyond seeking and needing help, whether on this Forum or elsewhere.