Why is artificial birth control usage so wrong?

[jilly4ski]

I married Catholic, which is what brought me here. The only reason I post here, is because I disagree when people place NFP users as somehow in a different moral plane. I get that they disagree with the practice of ABC, and as such condemn its use. What gets me is the attitude that they have a more “righteous” sex drive or sexual urges. Or the sex they have is somehow sanctioned by Jesus himself. Or any number of other ideas.

The shining example is here, in this thread. Not a single user has the honesty (so far) to admit that they practice NFP in order to have sex with their spouse without the worry of a pregnancy. Even this simple admission, I feel, makes the person feel somehow “dirty”, like an ABC user. To me, it is an undeniable fact, but sometime pride gets in the way.

Like I said, NFP does not equal ABC. But it does seem to mess with peoples heads sometimes…

Umm, because people who practice ABC are on a different “moral plane.” They are engaged in an intrinsically evil practice. You fail to acknowledge that morality operates in two different stages. One in the ends that we humans are trying to achieve and two, in the means employed to achieve those ends.

Avoiding children is the end that both ABC users and NFP users are both trying to accomplish. This is not morally wrong, as several people have tried to explain above. There may be times when a couple cannot welcome a child in their life for many serious reasons.

However, the means used to accomplish this goal is what separates ABC and NFP users, morally. In order to accomplish the goal NFP users must abstain from sexual relations, whereas ABC users purposefully sterilize their sex. Think of it this way, say two couples were using fertility awareness methods, and one couple on seeing that the woman was fertile abstained from marital relations while she was fertile. The other couple on seeing that the wife was fertile went out and got condoms (or other short term ABC) so they could continue engaging in the marital act. Are these two couples actions morally the same?

We could maybe say their intentions/goals/ends are morally equivalent, but I do not think we can say their means/methods are morally equivalent. Their actions and non actions are radically different.

The moral way to avoid conception is to abstain from sexual relations (the Church and I dare say natural law both posit this). ABC allows a couple to avoid conception without having to avoid sex. But conception is the natural end of sex during the fertile period. So the ABC couple wants to engage in an act without the natural consequences. But you cannot say the same thing for NFP couples, they can indeed engage in sexual relations when they are not fertile (just like everyone else), but if they want to avoid conception they must avoid sexual relations during the fertile time. Thus not engaging the the act that would usually lead to its natural consequences.

To the poster who was curious about mortal sin: a mortal sin must be a grave matter, with full knowledge and full consent. Using ABC is a grave matter, which would make it a sin, but if people are using it without full knowledge or full consent then it might not be a mortal sin. But that does not mean that we can hide from the information and knowledge that is out there, and indeed those who are using ABC put their souls at risk, we just don’t know to what extent.

 

[murphjos]

Dont blame your failure of reading comprehension on me. I will summarize for you here, as you dont seem to quick:

Now that is uncharitable and a lot further from the truth than my assertion that sex while using ABC is essentially mutual masturbation. By the way I made no judgment about the intent or emotional content of the act. Certainly couples can express affection and give pleasure to each other with mutual masturbation. When you separate the procreative aspects of sex from those other good things mutual masturbation is what is left, the anatomical details are irrelevant.

The only reason I post here, is because I disagree when people place NFP users as somehow in a different moral plane. I get that they disagree with the practice of ABC, and as such condemn its use. What gets me is the attitude that they have a more “righteous” sex drive or sexual urges. Or the sex they have is somehow sanctioned by Jesus himself. Or any number of other ideas.

No one claims a higher moral plane but we do assert that ABC is immoral and that sex between married couples not using ABC is more righteous. We can even say that our sex is sanctioned by Jesus. After all we are following the teachings of the Church that Christ gave His authority to. So in that way you are correct.

Not a single user has the honesty (so far) to admit that they practice NFP in order to have sex with their spouse without the worry of a pregnancy.

Ok. My wife and I use NFP to have sex and not get her pregnant.

If what bothers you is that NFP proponents seem to believe that there lives, marriages and sex are more holy why not ask yourself how you could have that same confidence?

I tend to take an aggressive tone when challenged on this topic because our culture is antagonistic to this way of thinking. I would like to tone it back now and tell you that I (and I believe most other NFP couples) genuinely want other couples to see the truth that we have discovered. Modern cultures take on sexuality is a big lie. NFP is just part of a whole way of thinking and living that will set you free of that lie.

 

[Abu]

Janet1983
You are right that for Catholics: the absolute certitude is in the infallible doctrine of Christ’s Church against contraception.
But the reasoning, the logic, in Fr Torraco’s answer is impeccable. Fr Stephen Torraco is one of the greatest exponents of explaining moral arguments. Let us hope that many more will now go to EWTN to listen, learn and love.
He affirms that the doctrine does not depend on faith. The doctrine against contraception is based on the natural moral law.

There is a comparable connection between the fact that contraception is against the natural law, as is any other wrong action: stealing is; framing someone is; oppressing people is. The institution of property has the law of nature as its corollary — a law of morality which forbids stealing. The general principle being that good is to be pursued and evil avoided. But the idea of rupturing the bond between the uniting and procreative aspects of the marital act in contraception has opened the door also to other grave inhuman and unnatural, sexual perversions as well.

Digest: …“the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning.”
Why? “Because there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act.” You engage in sex while deliberately placing a barrier (chemical or device) to thwart the natural outcome of the act. It is a lie – and because it is thus for self-gratification it opens the door to masturbation, promiscuity and bestiality.

Deliberately separating the procreative end of sexuality by condoms or other means from the unitive end does open the door to all sorts of aberrations. The result of such feelings is seen from the deranged conclusions that actually result as seen below, that wallow consistently in the idea of “pleasure”, regardless.

See Live Australian Debate on Consensual Animal Sex at blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
As soon as you deny the natural moral law, any action can feel acceptable – sodomy, incest, bestiality. It is the evil of utilitarianism and the proof of the pudding is in the eating:
See Live Australian Debate on Consensual Animal Sex at blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Professor Peter Singer: “It is a fact that there is sexual contact between some humans and animals. I was raising the question why we have such a taboo on this. Sometimes it involves cruelty and the infliction of power and dominance on an animal, and clearly I oppose that. There can be occasions, I don’t know how much vivid description you want.
Women have said this is something that pleases them, the dog is free to do it or walk away, there’s no dominance over the dog, that seems harmless.”
[Peter Singer (Austalian philosopher) is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective].

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.
Today utilitarians often describe benefits and harms in terms of the satisfaction of personal preferences.

 

[PassingThru]

Now that is uncharitable and a lot further from the truth than my assertion that sex while using ABC is essentially mutual masturbation. By the way I made no judgment about the intent or emotional content of the act. Certainly couples can express affection and give pleasure to each other with mutual masturbation. When you separate the procreative aspects of sex from those other good things mutual masturbation is what is left, the anatomical details are irrelevant.

OK. Well, I would propose that ensuring all your sex is non-procreative by your own actions is the same as contracepting. Enjoy beating off your wife. Ill Fed Ex you a dildo, with a manual as you may not know how to operate it.

.
.
.
.

See, if feels good to say disparaging things about someone elses spouse and their most intimate moments. I may feel that your practice of NFP is what I said above, but I would never say that to someone. I said it now for dramatic effect. How you miss this I do not know.

And no, it is not even close to my snide comments about your reading comprehension because A) it is FAR more insulting to say anything about sex with someone elses spouse. Its something that can get you blasted in the face if you did it in person. You know this. You would not say that to my face. And B) I was right in what I said. I did not say the things you were proposing I said. And I have been quite specific. You know you were responding to what you wanted to hear, not what i typed. So no, it is not the same.

No one claims a higher moral plane but we do assert that ABC is immoral and that sex between married couples not using ABC is more righteous. We can even say that our sex is sanctioned by Jesus. After all we are following the teachings of the Church that Christ gave His authority to. So in that way you are correct.

Still does not mean its adherents can not have an honest discussion.

Ok. My wife and I use NFP to have sex and not get her pregnant.

If what bothers you is that NFP proponents seem to believe that there lives, marriages and sex are more holy why not ask yourself how you could have that same confidence?

OK, good. Glad you can at least say it.

And no, I am not lacking in confidence, I am simple aware of some simple facts. And not as welcoming to self-righteousness. (Not directed specifically to you)

I tend to take an aggressive tone when challenged on this topic because our culture is antagonistic to this way of thinking. I would like to tone it back now and tell you that I (and I believe most other NFP couples) genuinely want other couples to see the truth that we have discovered. Modern cultures take on sexuality is a big lie. NFP is just part of a whole way of thinking and living that will set you free of that lie.

Fair enough.

 

[PassingThru]

Now that is uncharitable and a lot further from the truth than my assertion that sex while using ABC is essentially mutual masturbation. By the way I made no judgment about the intent or emotional content of the act. Certainly couples can express affection and give pleasure to each other with mutual masturbation. When you separate the procreative aspects of sex from those other good things mutual masturbation is what is left, the anatomical details are irrelevant.

OK. Well, I would propose that ensuring all your sex is non-procreative by your own actions is the same as contracepting. Enjoy beating off your wife. Ill Fed Ex you a dildo, with a manual as you may not know how to operate it.

.
.
.
.

See, if feels good to say disparaging things about someone elses spouse and their most intimate moments. I may feel that your practice of NFP is what I said above, but I would never say that to someone. I said it now for dramatic effect. How you miss this I do not know.

And no, it is not even close to my snide comments about your reading comprehension because A) it is FAR more insulting to say anything about sex with someone elses spouse. Its something that can get you blasted in the face if you did it in person. You know this. You would not say that to my face. And B) I was right in what I said. I did not say the things you were proposing I said. And I have been quite specific. You know you were responding to what you wanted to hear, not what i typed. So no, it is not the same.

No one claims a higher moral plane but we do assert that ABC is immoral and that sex between married couples not using ABC is more righteous. We can even say that our sex is sanctioned by Jesus. After all we are following the teachings of the Church that Christ gave His authority to. So in that way you are correct.

Still does not mean its adherents can not have an honest discussion.

Ok. My wife and I use NFP to have sex and not get her pregnant.

If what bothers you is that NFP proponents seem to believe that there lives, marriages and sex are more holy why not ask yourself how you could have that same confidence?

OK, good. Glad you can at least say it.

And no, I am not lacking in confidence, I am simple aware of some simple facts. And not as welcoming to self-righteousness. (Not directed specifically to you)

I tend to take an aggressive tone when challenged on this topic because our culture is antagonistic to this way of thinking. I would like to tone it back now and tell you that I (and I believe most other NFP couples) genuinely want other couples to see the truth that we have discovered. Modern cultures take on sexuality is a big lie. NFP is just part of a whole way of thinking and living that will set you free of that lie.

Fair enough.

 

[John21652]

What I am saying is that if you have sex with a condom or purposely have sex when you believe the woman is not ovulating than it is still up to God whether she gets pregnant. **I just haven’t found a rational explanation for why condoms are not OK but NFP is…they are both a means to the same end. ** The whole natural law argument just doesn’t hold enough weight. It isn’t a logical teaching and the ONLY logical reason to follow it is if you believe that the church is always right, and since the church said that NFP was OK and condoms aren’t, then you should follow that. Without the church being right, there is no argument to be made.

There is a rational explanation as to why condoms are not OK and NFP is. Surprisingly, it is a very simple argument and one derived from Natural Law.

Natural Law operates on the premise that nature is good. Agreed? And when things are done in accord with the natural order of things, good results. If we have a flower growing in our garden and something goes wrong with it, perhaps it wilts and doesn’t flower at all, then we know we have probably done something wrong with it. In fact, our entire garden would look pretty messy. The same principle applies to human beings. They flower and blossom when they treat themselves and one another properly. So too with human sexuality. It is a part of being human and it serves certain functions with regard to our human natures. Human sexuality is designed to produce babies and to bond together the couples who produce those babies and to give stability. So the natural purpose of sexual relations between man and woman is to make babies and to bond together for the benefit of what we now refer to as a ‘family unit’. That process guarantees the continuation of the species. That’s the purpose of human sexuality. That’s what makes humanity flower, just like our plant we tend in our garden. If you don’t want your flower to grow and be healthy, don’t water it. If you don’t want babies, then don’t have sexual intercourse. Similarly, if you don’t want babies, don’t get married, because marriage signifies a readiness to accept the responsibilty of parenthood. Get either wrong, or both wrong and flowering does not occur and the ‘garden’ looks messy.

So what does contraception do? It breaks the natural link between having babies, bonding and creating stable relationships and a flowering, happy society. . Conctraception makes it easy for many to participate in an action the consequences of which they are not prepared to face. In the process they are putting up a barrier to their sex partners. A barrier, you ask? Well yes, because you are rejecting the fertility of the other person. You want the act, but not the natural consequences. You want their body, but not their children. The sex act is cut away from its natural intended consequences. At the moment our society is obsessed with sex and yet is hostile to babies. There is, then, a disjointed attitude to human sexual relations.

You might then suggest that couples who use natural contraception are striving for the same end as those who use artificial birth control. They are, but the difference is one couple will be engaging in a potentially fertile act and at the same time carrying out fertility destroying acts. see the contradiction there? The other couple, the one which uses natural fertility methods of contraception, respects the fertility and doesn’t engage in behaviours which destroy it. In the process they are showing great respect for the other person and that is a sign, part and parcel, of bonding.

 

[John21652]

What I am saying is that if you have sex with a condom or purposely have sex when you believe the woman is not ovulating than it is still up to God whether she gets pregnant. ** I just haven’t found a rational explanation for why condoms are not OK but NFP is…they are both a means to the same end. The whole natural law argument just doesn’t hold enough weight.** It isn’t a logical teaching and the ONLY logical reason to follow it is if you believe that the church is always right, and since the church said that NFP was OK and condoms aren’t, then you should follow that. Without the church being right, there is no argument to be made.

Surprisingly, there is a very simple argument and one derived from Natural Law, which is entirely based on reason.

Natural Law operates on the premise that nature is good. Agreed? And when things are done in accord with the natural order of things, good results. If we have a flower growing in our garden and something goes wrong with it, perhaps it wilts and doesn’t flower at all, then we know we have probably done something wrong with it. In fact, our entire garden would look pretty messy. The same principle applies to human beings. They flower and blossom when they treat themselves and one another properly. So too with human sexuality. It is a part of being human and it serves certain functions with regard to our human natures. Human sexuality is designed to produce babies and to bond together the couples who produce those babies and to give stability. So the natural purpose of sexual relations between man and woman is to make babies and to bond together for the benefit of what we now refer to as a ‘family unit’. That process guarantees the continuation of the species. That’s the purpose of human sexuality. That’s what makes humanity flower, just like our plant we tend in our garden. If you don’t want your flower to grow and be healthy, don’t water it. If you don’t want babies, then don’t have sexual intercourse. Similarly, if you don’t want babies, don’t get married, because marriage signifies a readiness to accept the responsibilty of parenthood. Get either wrong, or both wrong and flowering does not occur and the ‘garden’ looks messy.

So what does contraception do? It breaks the natural link between having babies, bonding and creating stable relationships and a flowering, happy society. . Conctraception makes it easy for many to participate in an action the consequences of which they are not prepared to face. In the process they are putting up a barrier to their sex partners. A barrier, you ask? Well yes, because you are rejecting the fertility of the other person. You want the act, but not the natural consequences. You want their body, but not their children. The sex act is cut away from its natural intended consequences. At the moment our society is obsessed with sex and yet is hostile to babies. There is, then, a disjointed attitude to human sexual relations.

You might then suggest that couples who use natural contraception are striving for the same end as those who use artificial birth control. They are, but the difference is one couple will be engaging in a potentially fertile act and at the same time carrying out fertility destroying acts. see the contradiction there? The other couple, the one which uses natural fertility methods of contraception, respects the fertility and doesn’t engage in behaviours which destroy it. In the process they are showing great respect for the other person and that is a sign, part and parcel, of bonding.

 

[John21652]

What I am saying is that if you have sex with a condom or purposely have sex when you believe the woman is not ovulating than it is still up to God whether she gets pregnant. I just haven’t found a rational explanation for why condoms are not OK but NFP is…they are both a means to the same end. The whole natural law argument just doesn’t hold enough weight. It isn’t a logical teaching and the ONLY logical reason to follow it is if you believe that the church is always right, and since the church said that NFP was OK and condoms aren’t, then you should follow that. Without the church being right, there is no argument to be made.

Surprisingly, it is a very simple argument and one derived from Natural Law and entirely based on reason.

Natural Law operates on the premise that nature is good. Agreed? And when things are done in accord with the natural order of things, good results. If we have a flower growing in our garden and something goes wrong with it, perhaps it wilts and doesn’t flower at all, then we know we have probably done something wrong with it. In fact, our entire garden would look pretty messy. The same principle applies to human beings. They flower and blossom when they treat themselves and one another properly. So too with human sexuality. It is a part of being human and it serves certain functions with regard to our human natures. Human sexuality is designed to produce babies and to bond together the couples who produce those babies and to give stability. So the natural purpose of sexual relations between man and woman is to make babies and to bond together for the benefit of what we now refer to as a ‘family unit’. That process guarantees the continuation of the species. That’s the purpose of human sexuality. That’s what makes humanity flower, just like our plant we tend in our garden. If you don’t want your flower to grow and be healthy, don’t water it. If you don’t want babies, then don’t have sexual intercourse. Similarly, if you don’t want babies, don’t get married, because marriage signifies a readiness to accept the responsibilty of parenthood. Get either wrong, or both wrong and flowering does not occur and the ‘garden’ looks messy.

So what does contraception do? It breaks the natural link between having babies, bonding and creating stable relationships and a flowering, happy society. . Conctraception makes it easy for many to participate in an action the consequences of which they are not prepared to face. In the process they are putting up a barrier to their sex partners. A barrier, you ask? Well yes, because you are rejecting the fertility of the other person. You want the act, but not the natural consequences. You want their body, but not their children. The sex act is cut away from its natural intended consequences. At the moment our society is obsessed with sex and yet is hostile to babies. There is, then, a disjointed attitude to human sexual relations.

You might then suggest that couples who use natural contraception are striving for the same end as those who use artificial birth control. They are, but the difference is one couple will be engaging in a potentially fertile act and at the same time carrying out fertility destroying acts. see the contradiction there? The other couple, the one which uses natural fertility methods of contraception, respects the fertility and doesn’t engage in behaviours which destroy it. In the process they are showing great respect for the other person and that is a sign, part and parcel, of bonding.

 

[John21652]

What I am saying is that if you have sex with a condom or purposely have sex when you believe the woman is not ovulating than it is still up to God whether she gets pregnant. I just haven’t found a rational explanation for why condoms are not OK but NFP is…they are both a means to the same end. The whole natural law argument just doesn’t hold enough weight. It isn’t a logical teaching and the ONLY logical reason to follow it is if you believe that the church is always right, and since the church said that NFP was OK and condoms aren’t, then you should follow that. Without the church being right, there is no argument to be made.

Surprisingly, it is a very simple argument and one derived from Natural Law and entirely based on reason.

Natural Law operates on the premise that nature is good. Agreed? And when things are done in accord with the natural order of things, good results. If we have a flower growing in our garden and something goes wrong with it, perhaps it wilts and doesn’t flower at all, then we know we have probably done something wrong with it. In fact, our entire garden would look pretty messy. The same principle applies to human beings. They flower and blossom when they treat themselves and one another properly. So too with human sexuality. It is a part of being human and it serves certain functions with regard to our human natures. Human sexuality is designed to produce babies and to bond together the couples who produce those babies and to give stability. So the natural purpose of sexual relations between man and woman is to make babies and to bond together for the benefit of what we now refer to as a ‘family unit’. That process guarantees the continuation of the species. That’s the purpose of human sexuality. That’s what makes humanity flower, just like our plant we tend in our garden. If you don’t want your flower to grow and be healthy, don’t water it. If you don’t want babies, then don’t have sexual intercourse. Similarly, if you don’t want babies, don’t get married, because marriage signifies a readiness to accept the responsibilty of parenthood. Get either wrong, or both wrong and flowering does not occur and the ‘garden’ looks messy.

So what does contraception do? It breaks the natural link between having babies, bonding and creating stable relationships and a flowering, happy society. . Conctraception makes it easy for many to participate in an action the consequences of which they are not prepared to face. In the process they are putting up a barrier to their sex partners. A barrier, you ask? Well yes, because you are rejecting the fertility of the other person. You want the act, but not the natural consequences. You want their body, but not their children. The sex act is cut away from its natural intended consequences. At the moment our society is obsessed with sex and yet is hostile to babies. There is, then, a disjointed attitude to human sexual relations.

You might then suggest that couples who use natural contraception are striving for the same end as those who use artificial birth control. They are, but the difference is one couple will be engaging in a potentially fertile act and at the same time carrying out fertility destroying acts. see the contradiction there? The other couple, the one which uses natural fertility methods of contraception, respects the fertility and doesn’t engage in behaviours which destroy it. In the process they are showing great respect for the other person and that is a sign, part and parcel, of bonding.

 

[John21652]

What I am saying is that if you have sex with a condom or purposely have sex when you believe the woman is not ovulating than it is still up to God whether she gets pregnant. I just haven’t found a rational explanation for why condoms are not OK but NFP is…they are both a means to the same end. The whole natural law argument just doesn’t hold enough weight. It isn’t a logical teaching and the ONLY logical reason to follow it is if you believe that the church is always right, and since the church said that NFP was OK and condoms aren’t, then you should follow that. Without the church being right, there is no argument to be made.

Surprisingly, it is a very simple argument and one derived from Natural Law and entirely based on reason.

Natural Law operates on the premise that nature is good. Agreed? And when things are done in accord with the natural order of things, good results. If we have a flower growing in our garden and something goes wrong with it, perhaps it wilts and doesn’t flower at all, then we know we have probably done something wrong with it. In fact, our entire garden would look pretty messy. The same principle applies to human beings. They flower and blossom when they treat themselves and one another properly. So too with human sexuality. It is a part of being human and it serves certain functions with regard to our human natures. Human sexuality is designed to produce babies and to bond together the couples who produce those babies and to give stability. So the natural purpose of sexual relations between man and woman is to make babies and to bond together for the benefit of what we now refer to as a ‘family unit’. That process guarantees the continuation of the species. That’s the purpose of human sexuality. That’s what makes humanity flower, just like our plant we tend in our garden. If you don’t want your flower to grow and be healthy, don’t water it. If you don’t want babies, then don’t have sexual intercourse. Similarly, if you don’t want babies, don’t get married, because marriage signifies a readiness to accept the responsibilty of parenthood. Get either wrong, or both wrong and flowering does not occur and the ‘garden’ looks messy.

So what does contraception do? It breaks the natural link between having babies, bonding and creating stable relationships and a flowering, happy society. . Conctraception makes it easy for many to participate in an action the consequences of which they are not prepared to face. In the process they are putting up a barrier to their sex partners. A barrier, you ask? Well yes, because you are rejecting the fertility of the other person. You want the act, but not the natural consequences. You want their body, but not their children. The sex act is cut away from its natural intended consequences. At the moment our society is obsessed with sex and yet is hostile to babies. There is, then, a disjointed attitude to human sexual relations.

You might then suggest that couples who use natural contraception are striving for the same end as those who use artificial birth control. They are, but the difference is one couple will be engaging in a potentially fertile act and at the same time carrying out fertility destroying acts. see the contradiction there? The other couple, the one which uses natural fertility methods of contraception, respects the fertility and doesn’t engage in behaviours which destroy it. In the process they are showing great respect for the other person and that is a sign, part and parcel, of bonding.

 

[Alindawyl]

Well, I never said that NFP was contraception, according to how the Church defines it. So you are putting words in my mouth there.

And, I never said to trust my person opinion on contraception, either. What I have boiled this down to is my simple statement from earlier: “NFP, as a practice, exists to allow couple to have sex without risk of child”. Like I responded earlier, this statement can be true, and not invalidate any of the Church teachings.

Now, that statement brought on your “insane” comments above. You also want me to some how “prove” this statement. I don’t really know how I can prove it, any more than I can prove the sun is a star I suppose. Maybe I can ask from the opposite direction. Lets say NFP did not function with any accuracy whatsoever whether sex will result in a child. Do you contend it would still be used?

Or, how about this. As stated, I contend NFPs use is to allow a couple to have sex with reasonable certainty no child will result. I say this is so obvious as to not need defending. You think I am wrong, apparently. Then please, grace me with what a couple uses NFP for? Not a flowery pontification on the definition of NFP, but why does a couple use it?

And to answer your question, yes, pending a great answer to the question above, I would say you are treading on insanity, or at least willful dilution . (Regarding my actual statement above, not what you are implying in your previous post, which is not at all what I said.)

Then I apologize for putting words in your mouth. That is what you appeared to be saying due to how you presented your arguments. You are fixated on the fact that contraception is used to avoid pregnancy and NFP can also be used to avoid pregnancy. You appear to see that similarity in ends as a reason why contraception should be acceptable.

To a certain extent, your continuous assertion that NFP was designed to allow couples to have sex without getting pregnant contains truth. But that is NOT the only reason NFP exists, and being fixated on that one aspect of the whole is a bit reductionist. NFP does stand for natural family planning, after all. Planning one’s family means trying to get pregnant AND trying to avoid pregnancy. The Church doesn’t expect couples to simply be baby factories. Prudent decisions must be made by each couple as to whether or not another child is desirable at any given time.

And that’s the crux of the matter. It’s NOT wrong to avoid having children for a time. The ends of contraception is no pregnancy. The ends of NFP, depending on how it’s used at any particular time, can also be no pregnancy. The difference, what makes contraception evil and NFP good, is the means rather than the ends.

Contraception as a means to spacing out births is not justified because of HOW it goes about avoiding pregnancy. Contraception sterilizes fertility to permit the couple to engage in sexual activity whenever they feel like it without getting pregnant. NFP, on the other hand, does not sterilize fertility. It merely gives information about the woman’s cycle. If she’s in the fertile part of her cycle, then to avoid pregnancy the couple must abstain. If she’s in the non-fertile part of her cycle, then the couple need not abstain to avoid a pregnancy. NFP does nothing to add to or subtract from the fertility which is there, or not there depending on where the woman is in her cycle. Contraception actively works to suppress fertility.

If an NFP couple have decided that it’s not a good time to have a child, they must sacrifice for that. They can’t just please themselves if they’re in the mood unless they want to “risk”, in your words, getting pregnant. It forces the couple to examine they reasons why they are not seeking another child at the time. If those reasons are good enough, then they should be willing to abstain for that week or two of the woman’s cycle.

The contracepting couple, however, have altered the functioning of their bodies to prevent pregnancy at any time, even when the woman’s cycle is in a fertile phase. The entire goal of contraception is working around rather than within the natural order. If it’s a condom, it alters the sex act by working to prevent fertilization. If it’s the Pill, it does that as well and also acts to prevent implantation if fertilization happens to take place (ie, it acts to cause an abortion). The couple have placed an artificial barrier around their fertility. The unitive aspect of sex is made disordered by the blocking of the fertility which is naturally there, and the procreative aspect of sex is effectively sterilized.

 

[John21652]

What I am saying is that if you have sex with a condom or purposely have sex when you believe the woman is not ovulating than it is still up to God whether she gets pregnant. ** I just haven’t found a rational explanation for why condoms are not OK but NFP is…they are both a means to the same end. The whole natural law argument just doesn’t hold enough weight. It isn’t a logical teaching and the ONLY logical reason to follow it is if you believe that the church is always right, and since the church said that NFP was OK and condoms aren’t, then you should follow that. Without the church being right, there is no argument to be made**.

Surprisingly, it is a very simple argument and one derived from Natural Law and entirely based on reason.

Natural Law operates on the premise that nature is good. Agreed? And when things are done in accord with the natural order of things, good results. If we have a flower growing in our garden and something goes wrong with it, perhaps it wilts and doesn’t flower at all, then we know we have probably done something wrong with it. In fact, our entire garden would look pretty messy. The same principle applies to human beings. They flower and blossom when they treat themselves and one another properly. So too with human sexuality. It is a part of being human and it serves certain functions with regard to our human natures. Human sexuality is designed to produce babies and to bond together the couples who produce those babies and to give stability. So the natural purpose of sexual relations between man and woman is to make babies and to bond together for the benefit of what we now refer to as a ‘family unit’. That process guarantees the continuation of the species. That’s the purpose of human sexuality. That’s what makes humanity flower, just like our plant we tend in our garden. If you don’t want your flower to grow and be healthy, don’t water it. If you don’t want babies, then don’t have sexual intercourse. Similarly, if you don’t want babies, don’t get married, because marriage signifies a readiness to accept the responsibilty of parenthood. Get either wrong, or both wrong and flowering does not occur and the ‘garden’ looks messy.

So what does contraception do? It breaks the natural link between having babies, bonding and creating stable relationships and a flowering, happy society. . Conctraception makes it easy for many to participate in an action the consequences of which they are not prepared to face. In the process they are putting up a barrier to their sex partners. A barrier, you ask? Well yes, because you are rejecting the fertility of the other person. You want the act, but not the natural consequences. You want their body, but not their children. The sex act is cut away from its natural intended consequences. At the moment our society is obsessed with sex and yet is hostile to babies. There is, then, a disjointed attitude to human sexual relations.

You might then suggest that couples who use natural contraception are striving for the same end as those who use artificial birth control. They are, but the difference is one couple will be engaging in a potentially fertile act and at the same time carrying out fertility destroying acts. see the contradiction there? The other couple, the one which uses natural fertility methods of contraception, respects the fertility and doesn’t engage in behaviours which destroy it. In the process they are showing great respect for the other person and that is a sign, part and parcel, of bonding.

Now for the second part of your statement, that there is no point in following this Natural Law reasoning if the Church isn’t right. Firstly, get it out of your head that the Catholic Church invented the Natural Law and get it out of your head that the Natural Law is not logical, or based on Reason. Firstly, the Catholic Church adopted Natural Law, most famously through St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas, however, was one in a long line of Natural Law theorists whose reasoning can be traced all the way back to Aristotle, Plato and the the Stoics. Now here’s the rub - Natural Law and Theology are not inextricable linked, as many beleive. Natural Law has been founded and developed on Reason and Rational enquiry. You can even take God out of the equation and Natural Law is still a very valid system of ethics. Let me quote from a Jesuit priest, Francisco Suárez, an eminent Philosopher of the 1500s -

even though God did not exist, or did not make use of His reason, or did not judge rightly of things, if there is in man such a dictate of right reason to guide him, it would have had the same nature of law as it now has…seem therefore logically to admit that natural law does not proceed from God as a lawgiver, for it is not dependent on God’s will.

According to even Aquinas man apprehends such law through the use of his *objective reason *and not through blind faith, or intuition, or grace, revelation, bells ringing, or anything else. Natural Law works from the premise that Natural Law is how mankind participtes in an ‘ordered creation’. Ends are dertermined through the use of objective reasoning and not by blind adherence to the passions. Right reason shows us how to reach rational ends according to our natures, while relativism does the opposite. Natural birth control represents the former and artificial birth control represents the latter. Now decide between using your reasoning powers or succumbing to your passions!

 

[John21652]

purposely have sex when you believe the woman is not ovulating than it is still up to God whether she gets pregnant. ** I just haven’t found a rational explanation for why condoms are not OK but NFP is…they are both a means to the same end. The whole natural law argument just doesn’t hold enough weight. It isn’t a logical teaching and the ONLY logical reason to follow it is if you believe that the church is always right,** and since the church said that NFP was OK and condoms aren’t, then you should follow that. Without the church being right, there is no argument to be made.

Surprisingly, it is a very simple argument and one derived from Natural Law and entirely based on reason.

Natural Law operates on the premise that nature is good. Agreed? And when things are done in accord with the natural order of things, good results. If we have a flower growing in our garden and something goes wrong with it, perhaps it wilts and doesn’t flower at all, then we know we have probably done something wrong with it. In fact, our entire garden would look pretty messy. The same principle applies to human beings. They flower and blossom when they treat themselves and one another properly. So too with human sexuality. It is a part of being human and it serves certain functions with regard to our human natures. Human sexuality is designed to produce babies and to bond together the couples who produce those babies and to give stability. So the natural purpose of sexual relations between man and woman is to make babies and to bond together for the benefit of what we now refer to as a ‘family unit’. That process guarantees the continuation of the species. That’s the purpose of human sexuality. That’s what makes humanity flower, just like our plant we tend in our garden. If you don’t want your flower to grow and be healthy, don’t water it. If you don’t want babies, then don’t have sexual intercourse. Similarly, if you don’t want babies, don’t get married, because marriage signifies a readiness to accept the responsibilty of parenthood. Get either wrong, or both wrong and flowering does not occur and the ‘garden’ looks messy.

So what does contraception do? It breaks the natural link between having babies, bonding and creating stable relationships and a flowering, happy society. . Conctraception makes it easy for many to participate in an action the consequences of which they are not prepared to face. In the process they are putting up a barrier to their sex partners. A barrier, you ask? Well yes, because you are rejecting the fertility of the other person. You want the act, but not the natural consequences. You want their body, but not their children. The sex act is cut away from its natural intended consequences. At the moment our society is obsessed with sex and yet is hostile to babies. There is, then, a disjointed attitude to human sexual relations.

You might then suggest that couples who use natural contraception are striving for the same end as those who use artificial birth control. They are, but the difference is one couple will be engaging in a potentially fertile act and at the same time carrying out fertility destroying acts. see the contradiction there? The other couple, the one which uses natural fertility methods of contraception, respects the fertility and doesn’t engage in behaviours which destroy it. In the process they are showing great respect for the other person and that is a sign, part and parcel, of bonding.

Now for the second part of your statement, that there is no point in following this Natural Law reasoning if the Church isn’t right. Firstly, get it out of your head that the Catholic Church invented the Natural Law and get it out of your head that the Natural Law is not logical, or based on Reason. Firstly, the Catholic Church adopted Natural Law, most famously through St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas, however, was one in a long line of Natural Law theorists whose reasoning can be traced all the way back to Aristotle, Plato and the the Stoics. Now here’s the rub - Natural Law and Theology are not inextricable linked, as many beleive. Natural Law has been founded and developed on Reason and Rational enquiry. You can even take God out of the equation and Natural Law is still a very valid system of ethics. Let me quote from a Jesuit priest, Francisco Suárez, an eminent Philosopher of the 1500s -

even though God did not exist, or did not make use of His reason, or did not judge rightly of things, if there is in man such a dictate of right reason to guide him, it would have had the same nature of law as it now has…seem therefore logically to admit that natural law does not proceed from God as a lawgiver, for it is not dependent on God’s will.

According to even Aquinas man apprehends such law through the use of his objective reason and not through blind faith, or intuition, or grace, revelation, bells ringing, or anything else. Natural Law works from the premise that Natural Law is how mankind participtes in an ‘ordered creation’. Ends are dertermined through the use of objective reasoning and not by blind adherence to the passions. Right reason shows us how to reach rational ends according to our natures, while relativism does the opposite. Natural birth control represents the former and artificial birth control represents the latter. Now decide between using your reasoning powers or succumbing to your passions!

 

[Abu]

Janet1983
You are right that for Catholics: the absolute certitude is in the infallible doctrine of Christ’s Church against contraception.
But the reasoning, the logic, in Fr Torraco’s answer is impeccable. Fr Stephen Torraco is one of the greatest exponents of explaining moral arguments. Let us hope that many more will now go to EWTN to listen, learn and love.
He affirms that the doctrine does not depend on faith. The doctrine against contraception is based on the natural moral law.

There is a comparable connection between the fact that contraception is against the natural law, as is any other wrong action: stealing is; framing someone is; oppressing people is. The institution of property has the law of nature as its corollary — a law of morality which forbids stealing. The general principle being that good is to be pursued and evil avoided. But the idea of rupturing the bond between the uniting and procreative aspects of the marital act in contraception has opened the door also to other grave inhuman and unnatural, sexual perversions as well.

Digest: …“the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning.”
Why? “Because there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act.” You engage in sex while deliberately placing a barrier (chemical or device) to thwart the natural outcome of the act. It is a lie – and because it is thus for self-gratification it opens the door to masturbation, promiscuity and bestiality.

Deliberately separating the procreative end of sexuality by condoms or other means from the unitive end does open the door to all sorts of aberrations. The result of such feelings is seen from the deranged conclusions that actually result as seen below, that wallow consistently in the idea of “pleasure”, regardless.

**See Live Australian Debate on Consensual Animal Sex at **blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
As soon as you deny the natural moral law, any action can feel acceptable – sodomy, incest, bestiality. It is the evil of utilitarianism and the proof of the pudding is in the eating:
See Live Australian Debate on Consensual Animal Sex at blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Professor Peter Singer: “It is a fact that there is sexual contact between some humans and animals. I was raising the question why we have such a taboo on this. Sometimes it involves cruelty and the infliction of power and dominance on an animal, and clearly I oppose that. There can be occasions, I don’t know how much vivid description you want.
Women have said this is something that pleases them, the dog is free to do it or walk away, there’s no dominance over the dog, that seems harmless.”
[Peter Singer (Austalian philosopher) is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective].

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.
Today utilitarians often describe benefits and harms in terms of the satisfaction of personal preferences.

 

[Abu]

Janet1983
You are right that for Catholics: the absolute certitude is in the infallible doctrine of Christ’s Church against contraception.
But the reasoning, the logic, in Fr Torraco’s answer is impeccable. Fr Stephen Torraco is one of the greatest exponents of explaining moral arguments. Let us hope that many more will now go to EWTN to listen, learn and love.
He affirms that the doctrine does not depend on faith. The doctrine against contraception is based on the natural moral law.

There is a comparable connection between the fact that contraception is against the natural law, as is any other wrong action: stealing is; framing someone is; oppressing people is. The institution of property has the law of nature as its corollary — a law of morality which forbids stealing. The general principle being that good is to be pursued and evil avoided. But the idea of rupturing the bond between the uniting and procreative aspects of the marital act in contraception has opened the door also to other grave inhuman and unnatural, sexual perversions as well.

Digest: …“the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning.”
Why? “Because there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act.” You engage in sex while deliberately placing a barrier (chemical or device) to thwart the natural outcome of the act. It is a lie – and because it is thus for self-gratification it opens the door to masturbation, promiscuity and bestiality.

Deliberately separating the procreative end of sexuality by condoms or other means from the unitive end does open the door to all sorts of aberrations. The result of such feelings is seen from the deranged conclusions that actually result as seen below, that wallow consistently in the idea of “pleasure”, regardless.

See Live Australian Debate on Consensual Animal Sex at blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
As soon as you deny the natural moral law, any action can feel acceptable – sodomy, incest, bestiality. It is the evil of utilitarianism and the proof of the pudding is in the eating:
See Live Australian Debate on Consensual Animal Sex at blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Professor Peter Singer: “It is a fact that there is sexual contact between some humans and animals. I was raising the question why we have such a taboo on this. Sometimes it involves cruelty and the infliction of power and dominance on an animal, and clearly I oppose that. There can be occasions, I don’t know how much vivid description you want.
Women have said this is something that pleases them, the dog is free to do it or walk away, there’s no dominance over the dog, that seems harmless.”
[Peter Singer (Austalian philosopher) is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective].

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.
Today utilitarians often describe benefits and harms in terms of the satisfaction of personal preferences.

 

[Abu]

Janet1983
You are right that for Catholics: the absolute certitude is in the infallible doctrine of Christ’s Church against contraception.
But the reasoning, the logic, in Fr Torraco’s answer is impeccable. Fr Stephen Torraco is one of the greatest exponents of explaining moral arguments. Let us hope that many more will now go to EWTN to listen, learn and love.
He affirms that the doctrine does not depend on faith. The doctrine against contraception is based on the natural moral law.

There is a comparable connection between the fact that contraception is against the natural law, as is any other wrong action: stealing is; framing someone is; oppressing people is. The institution of property has the law of nature as its corollary — a law of morality which forbids stealing. The general principle being that good is to be pursued and evil avoided. But the idea of rupturing the bond between the uniting and procreative aspects of the marital act in contraception has opened the door also to other grave inhuman and unnatural, sexual perversions as well.

Digest: …“the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning.”
Why? “Because there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act.” You engage in sex while deliberately placing a barrier (chemical or device) to thwart the natural outcome of the act. It is a lie – and because it is thus for self-gratification it opens the door to masturbation, promiscuity and bestiality.

Deliberately separating the procreative end of sexuality by condoms or other means from the unitive end does open the door to all sorts of aberrations. The result of such feelings is seen from the deranged conclusions that actually result as seen below, that wallow consistently in the idea of “pleasure”, regardless.

See Live Australian Debate on Consensual Animal Sex at blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
As soon as you deny the natural moral law, any action can feel acceptable – sodomy, incest, bestiality. It is the evil of utilitarianism and the proof of the pudding is in the eating:
See Live Australian Debate on Consensual Animal Sex at blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Professor Peter Singer: “It is a fact that there is sexual contact between some humans and animals. I was raising the question why we have such a taboo on this. Sometimes it involves cruelty and the infliction of power and dominance on an animal, and clearly I oppose that. There can be occasions, I don’t know how much vivid description you want.
Women have said this is something that pleases them, the dog is free to do it or walk away, there’s no dominance over the dog, that seems harmless.”
[Peter Singer (Austalian philosopher) is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular preference utilitarian perspective].

Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome.
Today utilitarians often describe benefits and harms in terms of the satisfaction of personal preferences.

 

[choose_to_love]

@ passing: you are right, I thought there were only two sentences in the quote you highlighted which I was commenting on. murphyjo’s comment still makes some sense, in context.

“precisely none of them having an opportunity to be procreative” and “ensuring all your sex is non-procreative”

Any non-contracepted sex is procreative, objectively, even if the couple is subjectively not fertile (i.e., egg is available to be fertilized) or, if fertile, pregnancy does not result. The act is properly ordered to procreation when the parties do not take action to sterilize the act. It maintains its essential nature when it is unaltered. Same would go for infertile couples, post-menospausal couples, etc.

 

[murphjos]

See, if feels good to say disparaging things about someone elses spouse and their most intimate moments. I may feel that your practice of NFP is what I said above, but I would never say that to someone. I said it now for dramatic effect. How you miss this I do not know.

I said nothing disparaging. I even tried to explain that in my last post. As Much as you would beg those supporting NFP to admit that they are using NFP to avoid pregnancy I would ask you to tell me what is untrue about my statement.

Morally, what is the difference between genital intercourse where the procreative possibility has been mechanically or chemically frustrated and other forms of mutually pleasurable activities (i.e. mutual masturbation). I believe that it is a plain fact that there is none. Now if that sounds insulting to you then you must believe there is something wrong with those acts. If that is so, then you are closer to understanding why Catholics eschew ABC.

BTW you mention that I would not say this to your face. That is not true. I have had these conversations in person and I would say this to your face. I have not once personally insulted you. If you find my assertions uncomfortable when you apply them to your own life, I can not take responsibility for that. Please believe me that my intent is not to insult.

 

[PassingThru]

I said nothing disparaging. I even tried to explain that in my last post. As Much as you would beg those supporting NFP to admit that they are using NFP to avoid pregnancy I would ask you to tell me what is untrue about my statement.

Unfortunately, you do not get to judge if it is disparaging. Plus, I think you feel that it is not disparaging as it is the “Truth”, therefore it is somehow shielded. This, of course, never works. For example. I will assume you follow most of the Church teachings pretty closely. Lets say you were at a picnic, and someone was introducing you to another couple that has a homosexual child. They might say “This is Joseph, he lives next door. He is a homophobic and a bit of a bigot, but otherwise a stand up guy.” Now, to him, this may be completely accurate according to his beliefs. Nothing you could say would change that his statement is accurate. It doesn’t mean that it is a smart thing to say. This is of course just to make a point.

I made an assertion about why people practice NFP. You followed with your “mutual masturbation” comment. You have admitted my statement was correct all along, but you do not like it. You just said above “I would ask you to tell me what is untrue about my statement.” Again, reading comprehension. I have said that there is nothing wrong with following your faith’s teachings. I dont agree, but that is true of lots of things. What I said is you look like a Grade A prick calling everyone elses sex mutual masturbation.

Morally, what is the difference between genital intercourse where the procreative possibility has been mechanically or chemically frustrated and other forms of mutually pleasurable activities (i.e. mutual masturbation). I believe that it is a plain fact that there is none. Now if that sounds insulting to you then you must believe there is something wrong with those acts. If that is so, then you are closer to understanding why Catholics eschew ABC.

No, it is not a “plain fact”. It may be to you and a small group of dedicated NFP practitioners, but that is not how a reasonable person defines a “plain fact”. In this case, I think we should be in agreement that my original statement of why people practice NFP is, by and large, true. (you said as much) If it didn’t work, no one would practice NFP, and there is no real way around that. This makes it obvious to all except a very small fringe (nothing is ever 100% with people). However, your statement about mutual masturbation is not “plain fact”, as it is rejected by the vast majority. (If we asked a few thousand couples, it would be soundly rejected, and I think we all know this as well) This has nothing to do with whether your faith is accurate or not. Either way it is NOT OBVIOUS.

In addition, your “morally” portion is completely dependent on your belief that it can only be “frustrated” by chemical or physical means only. If one does not have this belief, then NFP is just as much “mutual masturbation”.

Lastly, if this was so plainly obvious, why is it that only a very small fraction of Catholics themselves are sold on the idea? Again, doesn’t make it right or wrong, but it does further drive the point it is not obvious.

To your final point, no, the Churches teaching are not at all insulting to me. I understand the teaching of the Church very well. Your comments are, however, doubly so considering they were to rebuke a point you later admit to. My admission that your comments sound insulting does not mean your comments are correct. That makes no sense whatsoever.

BTW you mention that I would not say this to your face. That is not true. I have had these conversations in person and I would say this to your face. I have not once personally insulted you. If you find my assertions uncomfortable when you apply them to your own life, I can not take responsibility for that. Please believe me that my intent is not to insult.

Please see above.

And somehow, I have trouble believing you look a married couple in the eyes and tell them they dont have sex, they just masturbate together. I am not in any way a physical man, but if you said that to my face, particularly with my wife, I would indeed suggest ducking. I also dont believe your assertion that they could not be personally insulted. Either way, if you are telling people this, as you proudly assert you are, maybe it is not so difficult to figure out why so very few Catholics follow your practice of NFP. By all means, keep telling them.

 

[murphjos]

I have said that there is nothing wrong with following your faith’s teachings. I dont agree, but that is true of lots of things. What I said is you look like a Grade A prick calling everyone elses sex mutual masturbation.
…
I am not in any way a physical man, but if you said that to my face, particularly with my wife, I would indeed suggest ducking.

Wow! You are very angry. You keep insisting that you are not saying any thing negative about our beliefs. But it is implicit in your line of questioning that you are out to prove a point. Not to mention the fact that you point out how NFP proponents are a fringe. It is very dishonest and lawyerly to ask leading questions and then accuse respondents of poor reading comprehension or dishonesty when the answers elaborate beyond the scope of the question. You might as well ask; “when did you stop beating your wife?”.

I would still like to press you on the point that has gotten under your skin so badly.

What is the moral difference between heterosexual genital intercourse while using contraception and any of the following?;

Oral sex,
Mutual masturbation
Anal sex

Your only response has been that almost everyone would say there is a difference and that it depends on what your moral beliefs in general are. That is not an answer. You are dancing around my question now. If it is dependent on a persons general moral standards then just apply yours. What is the difference as you see it?