Why is artificial birth control usage so wrong?

[bingbang]

Not true. MY wife and I are using to NFP to delay conceiving even though we would welcome more children with open hearts. We have no trouble conceiving even while my wife is nursing. If we did not have NFP to help with spacing our youngest would be cut off from mothers milk by the pregnancy and my wife would not have time to recover from the last pregnancy and birth.

How is that you presume know what motivates couples using NFP?

You are just using a different end for the same means. One couple uses condoms, the other couple uses NFP, they both want to avoid having a baby. I don’t really see how you avoid the baby should effect your mindset at all.

 

[murphjos]

You are just using a different end for the same means. One couple uses condoms, the other couple uses NFP, they both want to avoid having a baby. I don’t really see how you avoid the baby should effect your mindset at all.

That has been answered several times already on this thread. There is a difference between choosing when and if to have sex and sterilizing the act. But you changed the subject any way. I objected to your assertion that NFP couples likely see children as inconveniences just like contracepting couples do. That is not true. Accepting Church teaching on sex in marriage and embracing NFP is not choosing an alternative form of contraception. It is an entirely different culture. I would no sooner wear condom than wear yarmulke; I am not a member of that culture.

 

[PassingThru]

That has been answered several times already on this thread. There is a difference between choosing when and if to have sex and sterilizing the act. But you changed the subject any way. I objected to your assertion that NFP couples likely see children as inconveniences just like contracepting couples do. That is not true. Accepting Church teaching on sex in marriage and embracing NFP is not choosing an alternative form of contraception. It is an entirely different culture. I would no sooner wear condom than wear yarmulke; I am not a member of that culture.

It always amuses me that people get very defensive when you say something along the lines of “using NFP is being closed to children”. Here on this thread you just said “How is that you presume know what motivates couples using NFP?”. Yet, you are so completely sure that couples who use a condom “see children as an inconvenience” or some such thing. I have a kettle you should meet.

I don’t know who is “open to children” and who is not, mentally. Just be aware of how hypocritical and ignorant it sounds to declare some blanket statement about one side, and then deride someone who does the same for your side.

 

[edwest2]

It always amuses me that people get very defensive when you say something along the lines of “using NFP is being closed to children”. Here on this thread you just said “How is that you presume know what motivates couples using NFP?”. Yet, you are so completely sure that couples who use a condom “see children as an inconvenience” or some such thing. I have a kettle you should meet.

I don’t know who is “open to children” and who is not, mentally. Just be aware of how hypocritical and ignorant it sounds to declare some blanket statement about one side, and then deride someone who does the same for your side.

Speaking of a kettle, what is the purpose of artificial birth control? As one person put it (not on this forum): “It is the anti-baby pill.” Ignorant does not apply. Anybody who buys condoms or goes on the pill, has only one thought in mind: sex is desired but no baby is desired.

God bless,
Ed

 

[PassingThru]

Speaking of a kettle, what is the purpose of artificial birth control? As one person put it (not on this forum): “It is the anti-baby pill.” Ignorant does not apply. Anybody who buys condoms or goes on the pill, has only one thought in mind: sex is desired but no baby is desired.

God bless,
Ed

I didn’t say what was in anyone’s mind. You seemed to miss that one.

Nice quote, it means nothing. I was pointing out it looks silly to tell one group what they have in their head, then get all hot and bothered when they do the same to you. Thanks for being an example.

And, just to be clear. What, exactly, does a couple use NFP for? I would venture to say it is to have sex, but reduce as much as possible the chance of a child resulting. Am I wrong? I am all ears.

 

[murphjos]

And, just to be clear. What, exactly, does a couple use NFP for? I would venture to say it is to have sex, but reduce as much as possible the chance of a child resulting. Am I wrong? I am all ears.

You are wrong. A couple uses NFP to determine the relative likelihood of sex resulting in conception. They then use that knowledge to decide weather or not to have sex. They may abstain because to avoid pregnancy or they may abstain with the intention of waiting for a more fertile time if they are trying to conceive.

NFP does not change the act or the fertility of the couple. It informs their decisions.

 

[PassingThru]

You are wrong. A couple uses NFP to determine the relative likelihood of sex resulting in conception. They then use that knowledge to decide weather or not to have sex. They may abstain because to avoid pregnancy or they may abstain with the intention of waiting for a more fertile time if they are trying to conceive.

NFP does not change the act or the fertility of the couple. It informs their decisions.

Two points:

One, you answered why you feel the need to use NFP. I like how you then transfer that to all NFP users, while simultaneously placing all ABC users in a separate and opposite group. Sound logic, that.

Two, I think your long winded answer could have been shortened to be “yes, they use NFP to avoid pregnancy”. I like your extra words, but, that is at some point an unavoidable truth. But, I am not then taking that to mean “you are closed to children” or making any further judgments on what is in your mind. I find it amusing that you can do this for the majority of Americans. But, I am sure I am the one being closed minded or judgmental… Hmmm…

 

[vsedriver]

You are just using a different end for the same means. One couple uses condoms, the other couple uses NFP, they both want to avoid having a baby. I don’t really see how you avoid the baby should effect your mindset at all.

The Church teaches that for sexual intercourse to be holy it must always be open to life. Sexual intercourse that is not open to life ie puts a barrier between the partners or is an abortificant perverts the sexual act.

Spacing out when you have sex still leaves the act open to life.

 

[bingbang]

Speaking of a kettle, what is the purpose of artificial birth control? As one person put it (not on this forum): “It is the anti-baby pill.” Ignorant does not apply. Anybody who buys condoms or goes on the pill, has only one thought in mind: sex is desired but no baby is desired.

God bless,
Ed

That is the same EXACT line of thinking for someone practicing NFP. Please tell me how it is any different.

 

[bingbang]

The Church teaches that for sexual intercourse to be holy it must always be open to life. Sexual intercourse that is not open to life ie puts a barrier between the partners or is an abortificant perverts the sexual act.

Spacing out when you have sex still leaves the act open to life.

I keep hearing that nfp is more effective than condoms in preventing pregnancy. Looks like it is Catholics who are less open to life then.

 

[Alindawyl]

That is the same EXACT line of thinking for someone practicing NFP. Please tell me how it is any different.

My wife and I are currently using NFP to try to get pregnant. Unless you wish to claim that contraception has any use other than avoiding pregnancy, there’s one clear difference right there.

 

[PassingThru]

My wife and I are currently using NFP to try to get pregnant. Unless you wish to claim that contraception has any use other than avoiding pregnancy, there’s one clear difference right there.

Complete and absolute red herring.

Lets go find some women who use the pill to regulate their period, manage excessive bleeding, or any other reason other than avoiding pregnancy.

The fact that a small percentage of NFP users switch to trying to get pregnant is irrelevant, just as medical uses for the pill or stopping diseases with a condom. Its not the focus of the points being discussed.

 

[jilly4ski]

I keep hearing that nfp is more effective than condoms in preventing pregnancy. Looks like it is Catholics who are less open to life then.

Your entire argument is a red herring, because the Church is not opposed to the regulation of births. They even call it a part of “responsible parenthood.” (Thus why the rate of success of different types of birth control is not really at issue). The Church is concerned about the means a couple uses to achieve their regulation of births. There are several reasons for this concern. The Church looks at the purpose and meaning of marriage and the marital act and see that ABC is against both the purposes and the meaning of marriage and the marital act.

“Open to life” as the Church uses it does not mean what you are trying to make it mean. “Open to life” actually means “ordered towards procreation” which means that regardless of any individuals infertility the act is completed the was it was intended. Otherwise single people who were chaste, married couples who were apart or abstaining completely would be sinning, by not being “open to life”, which I am sure you would agree would be a ridiculous result.

 

[murphjos]

That is the same EXACT line of thinking for someone practicing NFP. Please tell me how it is any different.

BIngBang and PassingThru,

Just because ABC and NFP (often but not always) achieve the same ends does not make them morally equivalent. Now if that is the way you judge the morality of all acts then we really have no more to discuss. But I suspect that you don’t.

The use of contraception is intrinsically evil and contrary to natural moral law. That is why Catholics are forbidden from it, not because it prevents conception. If the infertility of the act were the issue that would make immoral not only NFP but also post menopausal sex or sex between infertile couples.

PAssingThru, I did make a poor leap of logic in suggesting that contracepting couples consider children to be an inconvenience. I was responding to another comment. What I said was;

I objected to your assertion that NFP couples likely see children as inconveniences just like contracepting couples do.

I should have inserted a “some” in there as I can not say that all couples using ABC are not using it to space children for the sake of health or for other grave reasons. As for being closed minded and judgmental… Well I do judge that contraception is evil but I would never presume to judge the soul of person who disagrees. I really believe that open-minded moral relativism is getting the human race in to a great deal of hot watter, so I will remain closemindedly orthodox.

 

[Alindawyl]

Complete and absolute red herring.

Lets go find some women who use the pill to regulate their period, manage excessive bleeding, or any other reason other than avoiding pregnancy.

The fact that a small percentage of NFP users switch to trying to get pregnant is irrelevant, just as medical uses for the pill or stopping diseases with a condom. Its not the focus of the points being discussed.

Edwest2 said “Anybody who buys condoms or goes on the pill, has only one thought in mind: sex is desired but no baby is desired.” Bingbang replied “That is the same EXACT line of thinking for someone practicing NFP. Please tell me how it is any different.” I merely told him how it is different, by giving the example of my wife and I currently using NFP to try to achieve a pregnancy.

You appear to be presenting your mistaken idea of what NFP is as if it was fact. NFP was never presented as contraception when my wife and I learned it. The materials provided by the Couple to Couple League never presented it as contraception. The only similarity between contraception and NFP is that NFP provides information about a woman’s fertility that can be used to avoid pregnancy. If avoiding pregnancy is done for a time to space births, health reasons, or some other important thing then that’s fine because the Church doesn’t teach that each and every sexual act must result in a pregnancy. If it did then, as Murphjos said, postmenopausal women or infertile couples would be sinning every time they made love. But if it’s used to avoid having children completely… well yes, then NFP becomes equivalent to contraception because the line has been crossed into no longer being open to life. That was EXPLICITLY taught as wrong in the classes my wife and I took. I have heard NFP presented as “Catholic contraception” before, but those treating it that way were also presenting other teachings of the Church inaccurately. They were hardly a credible source of true teaching.

Maybe you should read “The Art of Natural Family Planning” or some other NFP manual before attempting to critique the system? I mean, aside from the main NFP manual, there are separate manuals for postpartum women and for premenopausal women, specifically to help them learn about what those changes in their bodies mean and how they affect the woman’s health. If NFP was nothing more than contraception, why in the world would such things exist?

 

[PassingThru]

Edwest2 said “Anybody who buys condoms or goes on the pill, has only one thought in mind: sex is desired but no baby is desired.” Bingbang replied “That is the same EXACT line of thinking for someone practicing NFP. Please tell me how it is any different.” I merely told him how it is different, by giving the example of my wife and I currently using NFP to try to achieve a pregnancy.

You appear to be presenting your mistaken idea of what NFP is as if it was fact. NFP was never presented as contraception when my wife and I learned it. The materials provided by the Couple to Couple League never presented it as contraception. The only similarity between contraception and NFP is that NFP provides information about a woman’s fertility that can be used to avoid pregnancy. If avoiding pregnancy is done for a time to space births, health reasons, or some other important thing then that’s fine because the Church doesn’t teach that each and every sexual act must result in a pregnancy. If it did then, as Murphjos said, postmenopausal women or infertile couples would be sinning every time they made love. But if it’s used to avoid having children completely… well yes, then NFP becomes equivalent to contraception because the line has been crossed into no longer being open to life. That was EXPLICITLY taught as wrong in the classes my wife and I took. I have heard NFP presented as “Catholic contraception” before, but those treating it that way were also presenting other teachings of the Church inaccurately. They were hardly a credible source of true teaching.

Maybe you should read “The Art of Natural Family Planning” or some other NFP manual before attempting to critique the system? I mean, aside from the main NFP manual, there are separate manuals for postpartum women and for premenopausal women, specifically to help them learn about what those changes in their bodies mean and how they affect the woman’s health. If NFP was nothing more than contraception, why in the world would such things exist?

I will avoid a long response with this summary.

NFP proponents often try to shield themselves from the fact that the existence of NFP is largely to allow them to enjoy sex without risk of a child. Period. End of story. This is, to me, an absolute and unavoidable fact. For some reason, this fact bothers many practitioners of NFP. They will give long winded explanations of “prayerful discernment” and “unaltered acts” as well as “open to life”, but will bristle at the thought they are doing this system to enjoy sex without risk of child. Why? I have no idea. The practice of throwing every person who uses a condom under the bus and treating them as child-hating sex mongers is apparently perfectly reasonable in their mind, but many refuse to acknowledge that NFPs very existence is dependent on them NOT getting pregnant.

I am not treading on what is in someones mind, or the validity of religious teachings. I will, however, point out what is as plain as the nose on my face. NFP, as a practice, exists to allow couple to have sex without risk of child. If it didnt function as such, it would not be practiced. (Please leave the “I use it to get pregnant” sub-group out of this discussion)

 

[jilly4ski]

I am not treading on what is in someones mind, or the validity of religious teachings. I will, however, point out what is as plain as the nose on my face. NFP, as a practice, exists to allow couple to have sex without risk of child. If it didnt function as such, it would not be practiced. (Please leave the “I use it to get pregnant” sub-group out of this discussion)

ummm, except that in order to avoid pregnancy the couple must abstain from sex.

 

[PassingThru]

ummm, except that in order to avoid pregnancy the couple must abstain from sex.

Yes, they must. We can both be right, they are not mutually exclusive. They also have sex without risk of a child. Does the fact that they abstain during fertile times make my statement incorrect?

 

[Abu]

Lutheran(ish) PassingThru
NFP, as a practice, exists to allow couple to have sex without risk of child.

The fact is that Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) uses God-given infertile periods without any interference with His natural moral law; that used for serious reasons, this would foster family life. There is no command from God not to use the infertile periods. While usually very efficient, it is certainly not absolute.
God killed Onan for using contraception. (Gen 38:9-10).

The morality of an action does not depend on efficiency but on intention. As has been expressed, God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this by anyone while at the same time putting a man-made barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act. The infertile period is usually observable and may be used regularly only when there are serious reasons.

That the marital act may be completely divorced from its objective of procreation by self-imposing a barrier while acting, and thus having separated the act from its consequences opens the door to using sex with anyone or anything, such as masturbation, bestiality, homosexuality, IVF, cloning. That’s why God has implanted the natural moral law within human nature, so that we can use our reason from cause to effect. Bestiality is encouraged by some utilitarians.

 

[Janet1983]

I would stipulate that this is the case. They are Catholics that have fallen into moral sin. They are rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff.

Truth is not determined by majority vote, but by the revelation of God.

Does that mean that using ABC is an actual mortal sin?