Thoughts on contraception

[mpartyka]

HIV from blood transfusions is rare since blood is tested, but still possible I will grant you that. Mother-to-child, how did the mother get the infection in the first place? Sex before marriage, adultery, drug use.

Or blood transfusions, or an accidental needle stick, or exposure to someone else’s blood in extreme circumstances (e.g., an auto accident).

–Mike

 

[manualman]

Funny how the smoke screen always starts getting pumped out whenever contraception comes up.

Hide from the facts all you want, but the facts are stark: EVERY culture that has embraced the contraceptive mentality as socially acceptable has seen its rates of abortion, divorce, abuse, promiscuity and STD infection SKYROCKET. Not coincidentally, they all also have seen their fertility rates plummet. The more socially acceptable contraception is, the further below replacement values that the birthrate goes.

In science, correlation does not prove causation. But it is a pretty dmn good clue that anybody with his eyes open pays close attention to. Even taking morality out of the picture one should wonder about the blantant correlation. Add Church prophetic teaching into the mix and the case is closed.

 

[mpartyka]

EVERY culture that has embraced the contraceptive mentality as socially acceptable has seen its rates of abortion, divorce, abuse, promiscuity and STD infection SKYROCKET.

I think you’re onto something here. What exactly is “the contraceptive mentality,” apart from the obvious (i.e., that it’s okay to use ABC)?

–Mike

 

[manualman]

Ahh definitions. I’ll take a stab:

Contraceptive mentality: The state of mind that views sexual contact as merely a pleasurable bonding activity that persons are entitled to and is, therefore, intentionally disconnected from the creation of new human life.

Humans are a fusion of body and soul. Our bodies manifest spiritual realities, nowhere more profoundly than in our sexuality. Those who practice contraception ignore this fusion and refuse to consider the spiritual effects that their meddling with the body’s divinely created sexual function creates.

 

[mpartyka]

Contraceptive mentality: The state of mind that views sexual contact as merely a pleasurable bonding activity that persons are entitled to and is, therefore, intentionally disconnected from the creation of new human life.

Let’s modify that a tad:

Contraceptive mentality: The state of mind that views sexual contact as a pleasurable bonding activity that married persons are entitled to and can therefore be intentionally disconnected from the creation of new human life.

How does that look?

–Mike

 

[manualman]

I think it loses the meaning if you remove the word “merely.” That word emphasizes the blinder that adherents have to the deeper fusion of the procreative and unitive functions of sex. Part of the problem with ABC is that it harms the unitive function as well as wrecking the procreative.

The other problem is that using the word “can” implies that it isn’t necessarily so. Part of the prophetic part of HV is the prediction that ABC WILL lead to a devaluation of children, not that it ‘can.’

Basically, I agree to the addition of the word ‘married’ but think the rest weakens the description rather than strengthens it.

 

[mpartyka]

Contraceptive mentality: The state of mind that views sexual contact as a pleasurable bonding activity that married persons are entitled to and can therefore be intentionally disconnected from the creation of new human life.

Okay, I gotta ask: Are you saying this as a sexually active married person (i.e., speaking from experience)?

The other problem is that using the word “can” implies that it isn’t necessarily so. Part of the prophetic part of HV is the prediction that ABC WILL lead to a devaluation of children, not that it ‘can.’

I’m using “can” in conjuction with the intention of the married couple who is engaging in sex. A married couple can engage in sex for the primary purpose of procreation, or a married couple can have sex for a primary purpose other than procreation – indeed, they are entitled to engage in sex even if they have zero intention of procreating, correct?

–Mike

 

[manualman]

1. Okay, I gotta ask: Are you saying this as a sexually active married person (i.e., speaking from experience)?
2. I’m using “can” in conjuction with the intention of the married couple who is engaging in sex. A married couple can engage in sex for the primary purpose of procreation, or a married couple can have sex for a primary purpose other than procreation – indeed, they are entitled to engage in sex even if they have zero intention of procreating, correct?

–Mike

1. Of course. Not only that, I’m speaking as a married man who is totally convinced that if we had been using ABC instead of NFP for the period after our second child, we’d never have been open to hear the still small voice inviting us to have #3. It’s a long story, but #2 was a tough baby and it was only the fasting of abstinence that shushed the noise of the world enough. Had we severed the link and just grabbed for the good times we’d never have heard it.

Allow me to turn the question around. Have YOU ever practiced NFP to avoid instead of using ABC? It’s hard during the fertile times, huh? Kinda like prayer, fasting, excercise, good diet… you know, all the things in life that are good for you aren’t the easy road.

1. So far so good. But if they take the further step of having zero intention of procreating AND use ABC instead of abstaining/fasting during the fertile time they subtley change the nature of their liason. It is no longer sex as God created it and becomes something tragically less. Not only the procreative aspect is lost, but the unitive function is damaged as well.

 

[mark_a]

Even though most Protestant denominations condemned the decision of the Lambeth Conference at the time, within 20 or 30 years, virtually all of them had changed their teaching on contraception.

Do you have a source or list of the denoms that condemned Lambeth? I could surely use it as reference material.

 

[mpartyka]

Of course. Not only that, I’m speaking as a married man who is totally convinced that if we had been using ABC instead of NFP for the period after our second child, we’d never have been open to hear the still small voice inviting us to have #3. It’s a long story, but #2 was a tough baby and it was only the fasting of abstinence that shushed the noise of the world enough. Had we severed the link and just grabbed for the good times we’d never have heard it.

Allow me to turn the question around. Have YOU ever practiced NFP to avoid instead of using ABC? It’s hard during the fertile times, huh? Kinda like prayer, fasting, excercise, good diet… you know, all the things in life that are good for you aren’t the easy road.

I’m not married, so, no, I haven’t practiced NFP. But you say something very interesting – it is hard during the fertile times because human biology is wired to desire sex more when the woman is fertile. Indeed, that was one of the arguments for ABC that the Commission discussed, as couples were basically being told to fight against their own biology. Rather than seeing NFP as compelling them to engage in a “worthy struggle,” many couples saw it as a hindrance to their relationship and to their psychological well-being. I think it’s great that you and your wife have been able to use NFP with no ill effects, but other couples’ relationships haven’t fared so well with it.

But if they take the further step of having zero intention of procreating AND use ABC instead of abstaining/fasting during the fertile time they subtley change the nature of their liason. It is no longer sex as God created it and becomes something tragically less. Not only the procreative aspect is lost, but the unitive function is damaged as well.

I have a problem believing that because the intent is the same whether you use NFP or ABC. Also, someone mentioned earlier that there is a failure rate with ABC (and I happen to know a woman who had 3 kids even though she was using ABC), so how is ABC any less “open to procreation” than NFP?

–Mike

 

[mark_a]

I have a problem believing that because the intent is the same whether you use NFP or ABC. Also, someone mentioned earlier that there is a failure rate with ABC (and I happen to know a woman who had 3 kids even though she was using ABC), so how is ABC any less “open to procreation” than NFP?

–Mike

ABC changes a woman’s God-given physiology (if you are talking about the pill, that is).

If you are talking about barriers, that’s like washing your feet with your socks on.

 

[mpartyka]

ABC changes a woman’s God-given physiology (if you are talking about the pill, that is).

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

If you are talking about barriers, that’s like washing your feet with your socks on.

Really, really bad analogy. I can’t even think what would be a good way to fix it.

If you’re talking about the pleasure factor…that’s really a matter of “to each his own” to me.

–Mike

 

[mark_a]

I don’t generally have a problem with contraceptives. Preventing the woman from ovulating is not the same as abortion.

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

 

[mpartyka]

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

Let’s stick with those that don’t, then (e.g., condoms, withdrawing, surgery, spermacides, etc.)

–Mike

 

[mark_a]

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

Most women are on the pill to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Jennifer_J]

All contraception wills the removal of the procreative from the unitive aspect of the marital embrace. Contraception ALTERS the act itself, whether chemically or through barriers. NFP does not alter the act in any way. The act is completed just as God created it–therefore it is procreative and unitive. Procreative doesn’t mean fertile, it means that if all conditions are right then a pregnancy could occur. However, God in his wisdom, didn’t make women fertile 24/7, 365. We have natural periods of infertility in each cycle. All NFP does is make us aware of that natural period of infertility. Since the Church doesn’t proscribe WHEN we have to have sex (nor that we have to have all the children physically possible), then it is licit to use any day of the woman’s cycle, even the infertile ones. As long as the integrity of the act is upheld, then it is licit to use those days that are naturally infertile as well as the days that are fertile. The intent is irrelevant–because that’s not what makes contraception against Church teaching. The Church calls us to responsible parenthood and infact, the “controlling of births” is not a problem, it’s the method used to control births–total abstinence or periodic abstinence NFP.

 

[mark_a]

Let’s stick with those that don’t, then (e.g., condoms, withdrawing, surgery, spermacides, etc.)

–Mike

Ok. Where were we?

Barriers and withdrawal have been around forever. Same difference except . . . . .

I seem to recall something about ancient Egyptians using lemons and crocidile dung (I’m guessing as a spermacide).

Surgery has been around forever, and even modern methods of surgery on the male can cause his body to create antibodies which can clog a man’s brain causing dimentia.

The Church teaches us that we are to love our spouse and children. The Church has always taught that contraception is evil. Every child wants to believe he/she was concieved in love. Would you tell one of your kids that he/she was a “mistake”?

 

[mpartyka]

All contraception wills the removal of the procreative from the unitive aspect of the marital embrace. Contraception ALTERS the act itself, whether chemically or through barriers. NFP does not alter the act in any way. The act is completed just as God created it–therefore it is procreative and unitive…The intent is irrelevant–because that’s not what makes contraception against Church teaching.

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

 

[mpartyka]

Surgery has been around forever, and even modern methods of surgery on the male can cause his body to create antibodies which can clog a man’s brain causing dimentia.

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.”

The Church teaches us that we are to love our spouse and children.

Many couples see ABC as a means enabling them to express their spousal love at the times they desire that love the most.

Every child wants to believe he/she was conceived in love. Would you tell one of your kids that he/she was a “mistake”?

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, so long as in both cases the child is brought to term and either raised in the family or given up for adoption? In either case it wasn’t the parents’ intent to have the child.

–Mike

 

[manualman]

I’m not married, so, no, I haven’t practiced NFP. But you say something very interesting – it is hard during the fertile times because human biology is wired to desire sex more when the woman is fertile. Indeed, that was one of the arguments for ABC that the Commission discussed, as couples were basically being told to fight against their own biology. Rather than seeing NFP as compelling them to engage in a “worthy struggle,” many couples saw it as a hindrance to their relationship and to their psychological well-being. I think it’s great that you and your wife have been able to use NFP with no ill effects, but other couples’ relationships haven’t fared so well with it.

Then both you and commission miss the point. If you have a need to avoid children then you DO need to fight your own biology. That’s precisely the catholic point. God has wired us to desire each other sexually and made it so that when we give into that desire, new life comes from it. ABC divorces the child from the desire so that sex and children become totally separate issues. This is precisely why contracepting couple have so few children: they’ve obliterated God’s design for overcoming our human selfishness.

NFP doesn’t CAUSE ill effects in couples. NFP brings to the surface problems that already exist in the marriage.

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 loose weight and puking up the rich food you binged on to the same end.