When is NFP wrong?

[Xantippe]

I recall one poster on CAF declare that when circumstances disincline one to conceive, one should not engage in sex at all. That, of course, is a personal opinion, not one taught by the Church.

In sufficiently serious circumstances, NFP starts looking a lot like abstinence.

As I often say, a lot of the time, NFP is just a fancy name for abstinence.

 

[Rau]

In sufficiently serious circumstances, NFP starts looking a lot like abstinence.

As I often say, a lot of the time, NFP is just a fancy name for abstinence.

It is precisely abstinence - but by user-selectable degree

 

[Xantippe]

It is precisely abstinence - but by user-selectable degree

Or more fine-grained abstinence.

 

[pensmama87]

Or more fine-grained abstinence.

Right. I’m always suspicious of the notion that using NFP to avoid pregnancy is somehow “getting away with” something. It’s a lot of non-sex, and the more serious the reason, the less sex there is.

 

[Xantippe]

Right. I’m always suspicious of the notion that using NFP to avoid pregnancy is somehow “getting away with” something. It’s a lot of non-sex, and the more serious the reason, the less sex there is.

Right.

I suspect that idea usually comes from people who don’t have much experience with it.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Ah the moral relativism of nfp. What’s right for one person may be sinful to another.

I will add this. Many of these premature nfp discussions fail to take into account the second half of a marriage. The other spouse.
“I want this” or " my reasons are that"
But honestly, it should be “we” and the we should be two people involving God in thier decisions. Not just once, but time and again.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

NFP is permitted by the Church not because of moral relativism.

Everything about NFP is morally acceptable.

Tracking a cycle. Morally acceptable.

Having relations with spouse ordered towards procreation. Morally acceptable.

Not having relations with a spouse. Morally acceptable.

What is morally unacceptable is contraceptive, and practices that are not ordered towards procreation.

What is morally unacceptable is not having “marital duties” for selfish reasons. An example I like to use is when Scarlet told Rhett no more relations because her waist was getting too big. Not wanting to get fat is selfish. Refusing Rhett in order to not get pregnant even more selfish.

In real life, I just went to dinner with in-laws and friends of in-laws. My kids were there. And the topic of conversation turned to one of the unmarried friends of in-law present who is expecting a baby but isn’t pregnant. And her surrogate, and the virtues and wonderful physical and intellectual qualities of the sperm donor.

I’m bringing this up because I can understand all the different reasons that this is immoral.

Among NFP people in real life, I don’t know any to my knowledge. I do know about people getting their tubes tied after the second, having IVF and letting the extra babies “go”. This has been topic of conversation at barbecues.

My NFP only OB/GYN doesn’t even practice anymore. At my next visit, I am sure that the topic will include a mirena IUD to help with heavy bleeding. Which is very tempting to me.

I guess, I’m not familiar with the many NFP users who use it in a morally relativistic way.

 

[Xantippe]

NFP is permitted by the Church not because of moral relativism.

Everything about NFP is morally acceptable.

Tracking a cycle. Morally acceptable.

Having relations with spouse ordered towards procreation. Morally acceptable.

Not having relations with a spouse. Morally acceptable.

What is morally unacceptable is contraceptive, and practices that are not ordered towards procreation.

What is morally unacceptable is not having “marital duties” for selfish reasons. An example I like to use is when Scarlet told Rhett no more relations because her waist was getting too big. Not wanting to get fat is selfish. Refusing Rhett in order to not get pregnant even more selfish.

In real life, I just went to dinner with in-laws and friends of in-laws. My kids were there. And the topic of conversation turned to one of the unmarried friends of in-law present who is expecting a baby but isn’t pregnant. And her surrogate, and the virtues and wonderful physical and intellectual qualities of the sperm donor.

I’m bringing this up because I can understand all the different reasons that this is immoral.

Among NFP people in real life, I don’t know any to my knowledge. I do know about people getting their tubes tied after the second, having IVF and letting the extra babies “go”. This has been topic of conversation at barbecues.

My NFP only OB/GYN doesn’t even practice anymore. At my next visit, I am sure that the topic will include a mirena IUD to help with heavy bleeding. Which is very tempting to me.

I guess, I’m not familiar with the many NFP users who use it in a morally relativistic way.

Conceivably, if Scarlet had been a model or actress and the breadwinner in her family, that might make some sense.

But in the book, yeah–it’s just selfish vanity.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Conceivably, if Scarlet had been a model or actress and the breadwinner in her family, that might make some sense.

But in the book, yeah–it’s just selfish vanity.

Yes, but denying Rhett was even more selfish. Especially when comparing it to Melanie. Melanie would die if she had another baby (and did).

 

[Xantippe]

Yes, but denying Rhett was even more selfish. Especially when comparing it to Melanie. Melanie would die if she had another baby (and did).

Kind of a bummer for Melanie’s kids…

Also, Ashley didn’t deserve that particular sacrifice, as he spent the better part of 1,000 pages nursing an illicit passion for Scarlet.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Kind of a bummer for Melanie’s kids…

Also, Ashley didn’t deserve that particular sacrifice, as he spent the better part of 1,000 pages nursing an illicit passion for Scarlet.

I haven’t read the book. Ashley in the film is more gentlemanly and doesn’t tell Scarlet “Please be happy and leave me alone.”

I’m a big fan of the film.

 

[Allegra]

Right. I’m always suspicious of the notion that using NFP to avoid pregnancy is somehow “getting away with” something. It’s a lot of non-sex, and the more serious the reason, the less sex there is.

That’s exactly why I don’t get the arguments that NFP can ever be sinful. Would it be sinful for a couple to abstain completely if they don’t feel they should have more kids? I don’t think most people would say it was. But somehow, abstaining periodically is the same as contraception? It doesn’t make sense to me. It seems intellectually dishonest.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

That’s exactly why I don’t get the arguments that NFP can ever be sinful. Would it be sinful for a couple to abstain completely if they don’t feel they should have more kids? I don’t think most people would say it was. But somehow, abstaining periodically is the same as contraception? It doesn’t make sense to me. It seems intellectually dishonest.

I agree, but I do think some people use NFP in a way that negates some of its positive non-contraceptive aspects. The sacrifice that comes with abstinence can certainly motivate a couple to re-evaluate their reasons for avoiding pregnancy.

However, I recall posters advising those practicing NFP to do just that, periodically re-evaluate if their reasons for avoiding are truly “just”. And then being pilloried and told essentially “how dare you presume to judge other couples” and even accused of being anti-NFP. So, it seems many who practice NFP don’t think such a re-evaluation is actually required, but that it’s fine to take the attitude that “We decided after Kid #4 that there was no way we could ever parent another child, end of story.”.

ETA: I must admit that kind of attitude does strike me as not that different from many with the same attitude who use ABC. Many of whom find abortion morally repugnant, and would be happy to welcome a child into the world if the ABC method doesn’t work – and I know of “pill babies” and even a “IUD baby”. Is that really so different than the “Absolutely done with actively trying for more kids, but if God surprises us we’ll welcome another” attitude many NFP users seem to have?

 

[Xantippe]

I agree, but I do think some people use NFP in a way that negates some of its positive non-contraceptive aspects. The sacrifice that comes with abstinence can certainly motivate a couple to re-evaluate their reasons for avoiding pregnancy.

However, I recall posters advising those practicing NFP to do just that, periodically re-evaluate if their reasons for avoiding are truly “just”. And then being pilloried and told essentially “how dare you presume to judge other couples” and even accused of being anti-NFP. So, it seems many who practice NFP don’t think such a re-evaluation is actually required, but that it’s fine to take the attitude that “We decided after Kid #4 that there was no way we could ever parent another child, end of story.”.

ETA: I must admit that kind of attitude does strike me as not that different from many with the same attitude who use ABC. Many of whom find abortion morally repugnant, and would be happy to welcome a child into the world if the ABC method doesn’t work – and I know of “pill babies” and even a “IUD baby”. Is that really so different than the “Absolutely done with actively trying for more kids, but if God surprises us we’ll welcome another” attitude many NFP users seem to have?

Eh, it’s always possible to “reconsider” when one is feeling particularly amorous. (In fact, plenty of little Catholics are conceived under such circumstances.) If neither wants to have sex, why have sex?

The thing is, that when there are particularly good reasons, sex just might not even cross one’s mind as a realistic or even pleasant option. The motivation level for abstinence often moves in tandem with the risks involved. With especially good reasons, one might be so scared of the probable consequences that sex might be pretty much the last thing we want–or heck, not even physically possible.

Why does marital sex need to turn into “homework”? If neither is interested, neither is interested. Just watch a funny show together and go to sleep without scaring each other to death. I just don’t see the expression of marital love in terrifying your spouse or having marital relations that fill one with dread.

While the “keep talking” thing sounds good on paper, in practice, a lot of issues just get worse with time. So if mom is 45 and mom and dad are concerned about chromosomal issues, it doesn’t get better next year, or the year after that. So it would be a bit OCD to keep bringing that up. Or, say, if the mother has been told that her uterus is extremely fragile and her doctor doesn’t want her getting pregnant again.

Some things might get better. A difficult child might get easier (had that happen myself) or the family’s economic situation might improve. So there’s some point in those discussions, but there are some where it’s just picking at a wound. Pushed too far, I think it could be pretty OCD/scrupulous–revisiting the same issue over and over when nothing has changed. It could also look like bullying to a reluctant spouse–it could be borderline abusive. (When told “no” by a sibling, one of my older kids keeps coming back over and over again with the same question–it’s not very nice to hear, even in non-life-threatening situations.)

As to your last question, because the couple is just not having sex? They’re not making themselves a bit less fertile than they are.

 

[Allegra]

Is that really so different than the “Absolutely done with actively trying for more kids, but if God surprises us we’ll welcome another” attitude many NFP users seem to have?

Well, yeah. It’s quite different because they are frustrating the marital act in order to avoid pregnancy whereas the NFP couple is making a personal sacrifice by abstaining until a time when they aren’t fertile. That’s sort of like saying what’s the difference between the lady who chooses to have one slice of cake and the lady who eats the whole cake and then inducing vomiting. They both have the same attitude about being fat but one is approaching it in a healthy way while the other isn’t.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Well, yeah. It’s quite different because they are frustrating the marital act in order to avoid pregnancy whereas the NFP couple is making a personal sacrifice by abstaining until a time when they aren’t fertile. That’s sort of like saying what’s the difference between the lady who chooses to have one slice of cake and the lady who eats the whole cake and then inducing vomiting. They both have the same attitude about being fat but one is approaching it in a healthy way while the other isn’t.

Interestingly, there is a new medical device recently approved by the FDA, that essentially allows obese people to purge some of their stomach content through a tube. Apparently it’s like a “feeding tube” but the tube is meant to have food go out, not in. I don’t see much difference between this and what people do when they have bulimia. Though it does reduce some of the risks of vomiting (all the stomach acid can damage the throat and teeth).

So, would this device also be considered to be “unhealthy” and as problematic as ABC?

 

[Xantippe]

Ah the moral relativism of nfp. ** What’s right for one person may be sinful to another.**

Well, we’re all different people dealing with different situations.

And anyway, we’re talking about NOT having sex. Where is the sinfulness in mutually deciding to do something else?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Well, we’re all different people dealing with different situations.

And anyway, we’re talking about NOT having sex. Where is the sinfulness in mutually deciding to do something else?

I think some of the NFP naysayers are contemplating scenarios in which the decision to abstain is NOT mutual, and then I suppose one can argue that the spouse that wishes to abstain is committing a sin by “not fulfilling the marital debt”.

I do concede the point about some reasons for NFP being essentially permanent and therefore, not requiring periodic re-evaluation. But I do recall that one pro-NFP argument is that, unlike someone who has an IUD in place, someone using NFP makes a decision every time they have sex, whether the sex is worth the possibility that it could result in a child.

I also don’t think the idea was for one spouse to nag the other about the reasons for NFP, but that both spouses should continue to discern the need for NFP, in some situations. I am not speaking of the slam-dunk ones such as “wife has a medical condition that makes pregnancy fatal”.

 

[Allegra]

Interestingly, there is a new medical device recently approved by the FDA, that essentially allows obese people to purge some of their stomach content through a tube. Apparently it’s like a “feeding tube” but the tube is meant to have food go out, not in. I don’t see much difference between this and what people do when they have bulimia. Though it does reduce some of the risks of vomiting (all the stomach acid can damage the throat and teeth).

So, would this device also be considered to be “unhealthy” and as problematic as ABC?

I don’t know about morally, but medically, yeah, I would think that it would go without saying that punching a hole in your abdomen to pump your stomach so that you can overeat is obviously less healthy than simply limiting your food intake. There would be a risk of infection as well as accidentally damaging the stomach lining by pumping out too much. I would expect that such a device would only be recommended for extreme cases where the person has PICA or something like Prader-Willi where their abilitiy for self-control is extremely compromised and the need to empty the stomach safely is likely.

 

[Javan]

I don’t know about morally, but medically, yeah, I would think that it would go without saying that punching a hole in your abdomen to pump your stomach so that you can overeat is obviously less healthy than simply limiting your food intake. There would be a risk of infection as well as accidentally damaging the stomach lining by pumping out too much. I would expect that such a device would only be recommended for extreme cases where the person has PICA or something like Prader-Willi where their abilitiy for self-control is extremely compromised and the need to empty the stomach safely is likely.

Unfortunately, it wouldn’t be particularly profitable for the medical industry if they were to limit the Aspire Assist to only those situations, so I really doubt they would do that.

On a positive note, it’s probably safer than a gastric bypass or stomach stapling.