Thoughts on contraception

[mpartyka]

ABC divorces the child from the desire so that sex and children become totally separate issues.

I fail to see how NFP renders the process any different. Instead of putting on a condom, you’re checking physiological signs and/or a calendar. In either case the couple is saying, “We want to have sex, but we don’t want a kid right now.” And a child may still result from the union even if ABC is used. So what’s the difference?

If you can’t see the difference between NFP to avoid kids and ABC to avoid kids, you probably don’t see a spiritual difference between dieting to lose weight and puking up the rich food you binged on to the same end.

Aaaaaaaand now we’re back in the realm of really bad analogies! Actually, I get what you’re saying – “These married couples want to have their cake and eat it, too!” To which I’m replying, “So do you!” The thought in the head of a couple that uses NFP is the same as the thought in the head of a couple that uses ABC: “I don’t want kids; I just want sex.” And the Church says there’s nothing wrong with a married couple’s wanting sex without wanting kids, right?

–Mike

 

[mark_a]

According to this web page, “Whilst at least 50% of men permanently had sperm agglutinating or immobilizing auto-antibodies in their serum after vasectomy, numerous studies failed to show any immunological or other adverse effects upon general health. These antisperm antibodies are therefore only important to those men seeking a return of fertility, and even then the correlation is poor.”

This source is rather biased, don’t you think? There was no mention of dementia.

What is the difference in attitude between a couple who uses NFP and has an unexpected pregnancy and a couple who uses ABC and has an unexpected pregnancy,

You know what most men think of barriers, that’s why the pill is so popular, even though it is linked to breast cancer and other diseases.

Why wouldn’t you use nfp and save your wife from the ill effects of the pill?

The truth is that the pill, taken daily, has the same effectiveness no matter the intelligence or dedication of the user. I don’t buy that nfp is as effective as the pill.

 

[JP2Admirer]

You’ll have to forgive my memory, but I believe in Humanae Vitae Paul VI spoke of the “contraceptive mentality” that can indeed be had by those using NFP.

An act obtains its morality from its object, and both intentions and circumstances form part of that object. That is, what is it you are aiming at in performing a sex act using NFP? What are you aiming at in using ABC? What are the circumstances surrounding the act?

Personally, I think the object changes in the two cases, although it can be the same. Using ABC, the intention is to not have a child, but it requires no respect for the personhood of the partner, which is a difference in circumstance and de facto a change in object. If I can have sex with my wife without respect for her, then I am going to demand it often; many times without respecting her. She becomes an object of my concupiscence, not a human being in the fullest sense.

Furthermore, there is no maintaining of the mean of temperance when using ABC’s. This I think, is the main crux of the matter. With NFP, there is an attempt at virtue, which ultimately has a view to the common good of the marriage. With ABC’s, self-indulgence is rampant, and thus, for lack of a better term, the objectification of partners.

My wife and I at one time contracepted, and believe me, at times it was more about self-satisfaction than about my wife. I didn’t need to respect her, or even court her, because I knew that sex could be, or should be, had whenever I wanted. I definitely lacked the virtue of temperance (and still do, though things are getting better .

Using NFP, the object can be the same as with ABC’s. If a couple’s intention is to use it so as to never have children, or with a contraceptive mentality, the object of that act is the same as using ABC’s. However, in the majority of cases, the cirumstance is changed by the bringing in of the virtue of temperance.

Furthermore, on the psychological level, I think NFP couples are more open to life because there is an openness to the possibility of error. With ABC’s, I think the case is different. THe possibility of error is not considered, and so the child is de facto, if conceived, a problem rather than a blessing.

Finally, I’ve found that in using NFP, during the fertile times, I have to court my wife because sex is off limits. Behold, the Romance is still alive!

Is it hard during fertility? Certainly, but I like the challenge. For Aquinas and Aristotle, the virtuous man is the happy man. Believe me, at fertile times in the past I’ve thought they must be wrong because the urge was that strong; however, it has gotten easier to refrain because the habitus has been formed. Alas! Sex doesn’t control me (as much) anymore; I control it!

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I fail to see how NFP renders the process any different. Instead of putting on a condom, you’re checking physiological signs and/or a calendar. In either case the couple is saying, “We want to have sex, but we don’t want a kid right now.” And a child may still result from the union even if ABC is used. So what’s the difference?

(…)

–Mike

The difference is that it’s not NFP that prevents pregnancy it’s the “not having sex” that prevents pregnancy. Couples spend most of their time together not having sex. If they are newlyweds it may not seem like it but, really, people still have to sleep, eat, go to work/school, clean the house, wash the car…sometimes people are sick or whatever. It’s not wrong for them to not have sex.

 

[Neolithic]

Are you not aware that some contraceptives can hinder implantation of a fertilized egg?

It’s possible, but it’s not very likely.

 

[mark_a]

It’s possible, but it’s not very likely.

Seems like russian roulette, especially if one is unsure of the type pill being taken.

 

[mark_a]

The difference is that it’s not NFP that prevents pregnancy it’s the “not having sex” that prevents pregnancy. Couples spend most of their time together not having sex. If they are newlyweds it may not seem like it but, really, people still have to sleep, eat, go to work/school, clean the house, wash the car…sometimes people are sick or whatever. It’s not wrong for them to not have sex.

Someone on these forums said that the pill wasn’t invented to avoid pregnancy, it was invented to avoid abstinence.

 

[AngelaBarbara]

At this page omsoul.com/ you can listen to an mp3 lecture about artificial contraception and why it does not conform to God’s plan for people to enjoy strong marriages. It’s about an hour long, and sets forth very clearly why artificial contraception is bad for marital relationships.

 

[Jennifer_J]

I think you’ve hit on the main reason why many couples, Catholic couples included, think the Church’s teaching makes no sense.

And exactly how does pill-based ABC alter the act of sex?

–Mike

Because the sex is now “against conception”—the sex is unnaturally sterile. The act isn’t procreative in any sense (and because of this the unitive aspect is also harmed). When you take that silly pill, it alters the hormones in your body to mimic pregnancy, then it takes those hormones away and you get withdrawal bleeding, not even a real period, not a real cycle.(I’ll avoid the discussion of breakthrough ovulation that can happen–and then result in a dead baby). The woman’s body has been unnaturally rendered infertile for the purposes of enjoying sex any time. NFP does not alter the act. Women have natural infertility during each cycle. You choose to have sex or not have sex based on prayerful consideration of your situation each month. It is not sinful to not have sex. THIS is why NFP is licit.

 

[kage_ar]

So do a lot of drugs. Indeed, some women are on the pill for medical reasons.

Some women are on the pill to avoid the hassle of a period or to mask symptoms of a problem. The pill does not cure anything.

 

[Doc2be]

I fail to see how NFP renders the process any different. Instead of putting on a condom, you’re checking physiological signs and/or a calendar. In either case the couple is saying, “We want to have sex, but we don’t want a kid right now.” And a child may still result from the union even if ABC is used. So what’s the difference?

You tell me if you see a difference in the fact that a couple has to work together…take the temperature, talk about the woman’s body, open up to each other in healthy conversation…in order to use NFP. It CAN NOT be done with only one person.

ABC…the woman takes a pill, or the man puts on a condom, or whatever method the couple is using…these is hardly ever mutual respect or responsibility. What does this set up?

What happens when either on of these methods “fails” and a child is conceived?

NFP - the child is accepted as a gift from God. The couple was open to life at the whole time and accepted the responsibility of the sexual act. They had nothing to rely on but each other and the trust in their love. Their conversations about the woman’s body and the desire for children opened up a line of conversation which many couples drop and don’t have these days.

ABC - The child is seen as “unexpected” (what happens when a sperm and egg meet, whether they were supposed to or not? This is just plain ignorance and blindness) or “unwanted” (what did they want from sex? It seems like people who artificially contracept, “Want to have their cake and eat it too!” They just want pleasure or some hippie giving of love and ones self which isn’t true because something is held back…their very biology is kept in a cage and leashed to a stick in the ground. How is that giving?). The couple blames the ABCs or each other and argue about it and the child is not received with open arms but with closed fists. This leads to abortion.

Do you see a difference?

Aaaaaaaand now we’re back in the realm of really bad analogies! Actually, I get what you’re saying – “These married couples want to have their cake and eat it, too!” To which I’m replying, “So do you!” The thought in the head of a couple that uses NFP is the same as the thought in the head of a couple that uses ABC: “I don’t want kids; I just want sex.” And the Church says there’s nothing wrong with a married couple’s wanting sex without wanting kids, right?
–Mike

This goes back to the the previous example. Yes, both want to have sex and both do not want kids. But which couple is open to a kid? If by some crazy chance both couples got pregnant, which couple is more likely to abort? Which couple is more likely to argue and to fight about the kid? Which couple is more likely to accept the child as a gift from God? So there is a huge difference in the thought process. The thought of not wanting kids at the time is the same, but the means through which they achieve that end is very different. One is closed to life and one is open.

Hope that helps.

 

[rad314]

It’s not NFP that prevents pregnancy it’s the “not having sex” that prevents pregnancy.

Dazzlingly obvious, once someone points it out! Thanks.

Someone on these forums said that the pill wasn’t invented to avoid pregnancy, it was invented to avoid abstinence.

“They say birth control; what they mean is no birth, and no control.” - G.K. Chesterton

 

[manualman]

I fail to see how NFP renders the process any different. Instead of putting on a condom, you’re checking physiological signs and/or a calendar. In either case the couple is saying, “We want to have sex, but we don’t want a kid right now.” And a child may still result from the union even if ABC is used. So what’s the difference?

Aaaaaaaand now we’re back in the realm of really bad analogies! Actually, I get what you’re saying – “These married couples want to have their cake and eat it, too!” To which I’m replying, “So do you!” The thought in the head of a couple that uses NFP is the same as the thought in the head of a couple that uses ABC: “I don’t want kids; I just want sex.” And the Church says there’s nothing wrong with a married couple’s wanting sex without wanting kids, right?

–Mike

The difference is one of degree. The ABC couple has sex whenever the urge hits with no biological connection to remind them of God’s intended link of the two. The NFP couple sit and stew on that connection and are encouraged by their very biology to wonder just how “serious” their reason for avoiding really is - 5 to 7 days a month! Be serious. There is a huge difference between ABC and NFP. The difference is, in fact, the REASON people are so averse to trying NFP.

And the analogy is great. If you have a legitimate reason to lose weight, you don’t stop eating alltogether! You just have to temper your desires and eat less than you’d LIKE to. Same goes for NFP.

 

[rad314]

I fail to see how NFP renders the process any different. Instead of putting on a condom, you’re checking physiological signs and/or a calendar. In either case the couple is saying, “We want to have sex, but we don’t want a kid right now.” And a child may still result from the union even if ABC is used. So what’s the difference?

People who practice NFP (which, incidentally, must be by mutual agreement) do nothing to interfere with the natural processes of procreation. Remember that it’s by abstaining from intercourse on certain days that they decrease the likelihood of conception. If there were a moral obligation to have intercourse on those days, you could argue that NFP is immoral as a sin of omission, but there’s no such obligation. It’s not a sin for a couple to agree not to have intercourse.

 

[LittleDeb]

Because the sex is now “against conception”—the sex is unnaturally sterile. The act isn’t procreative in any sense (and because of this the unitive aspect is also harmed). When you take that silly pill, it alters the hormones in your body to mimic pregnancy, then it takes those hormones away and you get withdrawal bleeding, not even a real period, not a real cycle.(I’ll avoid the discussion of breakthrough ovulation that can happen–and then result in a dead baby). The woman’s body has been unnaturally rendered infertile for the purposes of enjoying sex any time. NFP does not alter the act. Women have natural infertility during each cycle. You choose to have sex or not have sex based on prayerful consideration of your situation each month. It is not sinful to not have sex. THIS is why NFP is licit.

And to add to your excellent post…

THIS is in fact why the study mentioned in the OP was commissioned in the first place! They were not “reconsidering condoms” with the commission.
They were looking to study if the artificially sterile body was the same as the naturally infertile body in regards to the marital act.

Because the pill mimicked a pregnant body, they were looking to see if the artificial sterility could be acceptable. The majority on the commission saw no difference between the two states and recommended allowing the pill on the basis that it “mimicked” natural infertility. Our late Holy Father Pope Paul VI in his wisdom, disagreed.

Those of us who have been in both a naturally infertile state and been on those horrible chemicals will stake everything to say that it is totally different! The act is completely altered in an artificially sterile state. The couple knows they have done something to intentionally block the mutual self-giving.

 

[rad314]

I don’t think anyone has cited this excellent article yet.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0502fea2.asp

If someone has, forgive my repetitiveness (but read it again, anyway).

 

[rad314]

After reading the article from the Eastern Orthodox Catholic site . . .

Just to clarify, Schluns. The article is from Human Life International, a Catholic organization. It cites evidence supporting the Traditional ban on contraception in the context of exposing Orthodoxy’s innovation of accepting contraception.

We stand alone.

 

[FM927]

How about people that get pregnant while using contraception?
Obviously that was God’s will! So the way I see it is that if it is meant for someone to concieve, regardless of wheather contraception is used or not, they WILL get pregnant.

I don’t know why, but deep inside,no matter how much I try to tell myelf that contraception is wrong in the eyes of God, I still believe that it is the lesser of the two evils “Contraception vs Abortion”
for unwanted pregnancies.

I know both are Mortal Sins, and I have changes my mind about a lot of practices I used to believe in before CAF opened my eyes, but contraception is something that I just can’t accept expecially
for unmarried people who are engaging in pre-mariatal sex,) I know, another mortal sin".

I live in NYC, and here I have honestly never heard of anyone NOT having sex before they get married. People live together, go on vacations together and no one thinks these people are sinning. I am talking about catholic people.

Are we all going to HELL!

 

[Jennifer_J]

Here’s another article that speaks about the procreative aspect of the marital embrace:
lifeissues.net/writers/cat/cat_03conjugalact.html

 

[Jennifer_J]

How about people that get pregnant while using contraception?
Obviously that was God’s will! So the way I see it is that if it is meant for someone to concieve, regardless of wheather contraception is used or not, they WILL get pregnant.

I don’t know why, but deep inside,no matter how much I try to tell myelf that contraception is wrong in the eyes of God, I still believe that it is the lesser of the two evils “Contraception vs Abortion”
for unwanted pregnancies.

I know both are Mortal Sins, and I have changes my mind about a lot of practices I used to believe in before CAF opened my eyes, but contraception is something that I just can’t accept expecially
for unmarried people who are engaging in pre-mariatal sex,) I know, another mortal sin".

I live in NYC, and here I have honestly never heard of anyone NOT having sex before they get married. People live together, go on vacations together and no one thinks these people are sinning. I am talking about catholic people.

Are we all going to HELL!

Read the article I just posted, that will help.
The licitness of NFP or the sinfullness of contraception has nothing to do with the rate of failure of the method. NFP is licit because the marital act is not altered in any way–the unitive and procreative aspects are both fully present. With contraception (any kind) the procreative and unitive aspects are separated and thus broken.

And, just because “everone is doing it” is no excuse to condone sinful behavior. Whether the acts are subjectivly sinful for anyone person is not for me to judge, however, I can objectively know and state that sex before marriage is a bad idea on so many levels. It is not healthy physical and emotional behavior and it is sinful.

Keep praying for God to open your eyes to the sacredness of the marital act–the sacramental nature of it, so that you can come to a full understanding as to why using contraception is sinful.