Why Contraception Is Wrong (Quick Question follow-up question)

[Supercomputer]

Not “for procreation”.

Ordered toward procreation. Done in the same way that it would be done for procreation.

No using of chemicals or physical barriers added. If we believed God created us, that means He created our sexual function for a reason.

Why must sex remain ordered toward procreation in the case I outlined?

 

[Benadam]

Why must sex remain ordered toward procreation in the case I outlined?

Matri-mony = mother-state of.

The state of matrimony is necessary for the marital bond to form and flourish. So the intent to enter and commit to a maternal environment is essential to the marital bond. This is why a marriage must be consummated.

 

[Supercomputer]

Matri-mony = mother-state of.

The state of matrimony is necessary for the marital bond to form and flourish. So the intent to enter and commit to a maternal environment is essential to the marital bond. This is why a marriage must be consummated.

How many children are required?

 

[Benadam]

Benadam:

Matri-mony = mother-state of.

The state of matrimony is necessary for the marital bond to form and flourish. So the intent to enter and commit to a maternal environment is essential to the marital bond. This is why a marriage must be consummated.

How many children are required?

None are required.

 

[Supercomputer]

None are required.

How many children must be intended?

 

[Benadam]

Numbers aren’t relevant to the state of matrimony. A maternal environment is open to life.

 

[Supercomputer]

No true marriage places a limit on children.

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

 

[Benadam]

Benadam
Numbers aren’t relevant to the state of matrimony. A maternal environment is open to life.

No true marriage places a limit on children.
No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

That statement doesn’t pertain to a maternal environment that is open to life. A maternal environment open to life is one that doesn’t exclude the possibility of God’s intervention. That is why planning birth’s are not sin if the method is found in human nature. In other words that they are natural. The reproductive cycle of a woman is human nature.

Edit to add. That statement doesn’t pertain to a maternal environment that is open to life. A maternal environment open to life is one that doesn’t exclude the possibility of God’s intervention. This statement is in the context of planning birth’s.

 

[Supercomputer]

That statement doesn’t pertain to a maternal environment that is open to life. A maternal environment open to life is one that doesn’t exclude the possibility of God’s intervention. That is why planning birth’s are not sin if the method is found in human nature. In other words that they are natural. The reproductive cycle of a woman is human nature.

Edit to add. That statement doesn’t pertain to a maternal environment that is open to life. A maternal environment open to life is one that doesn’t exclude the possibility of God’s intervention. This statement is in the context of planning birth’s.

Stopping divine intervetion is impossible naturally or unnaturally.

 

[Benadam]

Stopping divine intervetion is impossible naturally or unnaturally.

the goal of unnatural methods are to make conception impossible. The intended goal consequently excludes divine action in the natural process of conception. The couple participates in the intention of the method.

 

[Supercomputer]

Thank for your conversation. I think I understand the issue better now.

 

[Benadam]

You’re welcome.

 

[Vonsalza]

Supercomputer:

Stopping divine intervetion is impossible naturally or unnaturally.

the goal of unnatural methods are to make conception impossible. The intended goal consequently excludes divine action in the natural process of conception. The couple participates in the intention of the method.

As the failure (pregnancy) rate of perfectly executed NFP is roughly the same as virtually all other birth control methods, the question as to whether most practicioners of NFP are actually any more “open to life” than a couple on the pill seems to be a valid one.

JP2 was certainly pretty leery of it on this basis.

As as to “natural/unnatural”, hormonal bc uses compounds that are already present in a woman’s body. Perfectly executed NFP, on the other hand, requires ovulation tests purchased at your druggist.

Which is thusly “more natural” seems to be fairly subjective.

 

[Benadam]

As the failure (pregnancy) rate of perfectly executed NFP is roughly the same as virtually all other birth control methods, the question as to whether most practicioners of NFP are actually any more “open to life” than a couple on the pill seems to be a valid one.

JP2 was certainly pretty leery of it on this basis.

As as to “natural/unnatural”, hormonal bc uses compounds that are already present in a woman’s body. Perfectly executed NFP, on the other hand, requires ovulation tests purchased at your druggist.

Which is thusly “more natural” seems to be fairly subjective.

It’s also the intention of making conception impossible that makes the method a sin.

 

[Benadam]

Perfectly executed NFP, on the other hand, requires ovulation tests purchased at your druggist.

Not necessary but makes the cycle more easily known in the beginning. A woman in ancient times would most likely be more aware of the cycle than a woman of modern times.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s also the intention of making conception impossible that makes the method a sin.

I’m not aware of any “contraceptive” methods that carry a 100% effectiveness rate aside from abortion or the complete removal of sexual organs (as even tubal ligations and vasectomies are known to fail on odd occasion).

Every other method has a failure rate the that practitioner tacitly or implicitly accepts. Again, these failure rates mirror perfectly executed NFP. As such, they’re effectively no more and no less “open to life” as the NFP couple that buys the occasional ovulation kit.

 

[Vonsalza]

Benadam:

Perfectly executed NFP, on the other hand, requires ovulation tests purchased at your druggist.

Not necessary but

The less precisely a couple identifies ovulation, the more likely NFP is to fail as a method of contraception.

 

[Benadam]

I’m not aware of any “contraceptive” methods that carry a 100% effectiveness rate aside from abortion or the complete removal of sexual organs (as even tubal ligations and vasectomies are known to fail on odd occasion).

That isn’t even relative to the reason it’s sinful. The intent is to make conception impossible.

Every other method has a failure rate the that practitioner tacitly or implicitly accepts. Again, these failure rates mirror perfectly executed NFP. As such, they’re effectively no more and no less “open to life” as the NFP couple that buys the occasional ovulation kit.

Emphasis mine. That a conception is a failure proves my point and why unnatural methods are sin.

 

[Vonsalza]

That isn’t even relative to the reason it’s sinful. The intent is to make conception impossible.

As this is the same goal of NFP, it seems a faithful Catholic doesn’t really have access to any form of contraception on this basis. NFP practicing couples have sex only when they think it won’t result in a pregnancy.

Again, because of this, JP2 was super-leery of it. I think the only reason he didn’t beat that drum more on the issue was that he was smart enough to detect the incredible strain that the remaining handful of thoroughly devout Catholic families were under when Paul VI basically told these families that their sexual options were “have a boat-load of kids or live as “brother and sister” or practice NFP”.

Every other method has a failure rate…

Emphasis mine. That a conception is a failure proves my point and why unnatural methods are sin.

Oh mercy. It proves nothing. It’s merely technical language that is required in discussing statistics and hypothesis testing…

 

[Benadam]

As this is the same goal of NFP, it seems a faithful Catholic doesn’t really have access to any form of contraception on this basis. NFP practicing couples have sex only when they think it won’t result in a pregnancy.

I think that NFP can be scandalous to some.
OTOH If a couple is using NFP it is a safe bet it is because it leaves open the possibility for God’s action in their reproductive life.

Oh mercy. It proves nothing. It’s merely technical language that is required in discussing statistics and hypothesis testing…

Sorry I didn’t mean you. I mean the technology of artificial contaceptive devices uses terms that betray their true meaning. A human life is conceptualized as a failure. The more human life conceived the more the technology fails.