D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Well pain has a useful function - look at what happens to people with leprosy and similar conditions when they lose pain sensation.
Why is "Natural Family Planning" ok when other contraceptive methods are not?
- Status
H
hellopeople
Guest
Well to some it is a negative.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Yes, exactly - otherwise NFP would not be required!
Although interestingly, in the UK you can’t get a payment for “unlawful birth”, that is conceptions in people that have been sterilised but it was botched or spontaneously reversed, apart from a small amount for the pain of childbirth (although there are exceptions).
H
hellopeople
Guest
Is a vasectomy a sin?
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Yes. Vasectomy would be a permanent form of articifial birth control, so yes it is a sin.
P
PassingThru
Guest
I am sorry, but we have progressed way past some of these issues, and I don’t want to re-hash them. A lot at the beginning of this (huge) thread was on these ideas.
“People contracept because they don’t want to abstain” You are starting to show that you think differently of people who choose ABC. That is fine. I am trying to keep it at two otherwise similar couples, and what would make NFP or ABC right or wrong. You have it in your head they are, in fact, different caliber of people. I will not start down that path.
And your analogy, as mentioned, intentionally misrepresented NFP to ensure that the couple was always “thoughtful” or “prayerful” or whatever niceties you used. And of course did not engage in a system to give them the highest probability of avoiding conception.
If you want to make a convincing argument, keep it centered on what makes NFP and ABC the same or different. Remember, this is about the relationship between the two, not whether ABC is right or wrong. Or NFP.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
I guess you might be misreading my intentions. I didn’t mean to sound judgmental.
I also never used the words thougthful or prayerful.
I have used the pill in the past, I have also used condoms.
I used them, because I didn’t believe that they were problematic at all. We used them for 2 reasons, to avoid children and to be available to each other whenever we wanted.
We use NFP to avoid, for pretty serious reasons. I understand how my body works, so even without charting or anything ultra complicated I know when I am fertile. We avoid intimacy at this time.
The abstaining part, is what makes the two methods radically different. I am still fertile monthly, and abstain monthly. When I was on the pill, I wasn’t fertile, so we didn’t bother abstaining.
A
Abu
Guest
Mary Gail, excellent summation in your post #444.
If his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism – the purpose and meaning and nature of sexual intercourse is for babies and it’s for bonding, within marriage, where children can be reared with a father and mother in a stable family unit.
Re #301: Neither the act nor the couple is frustrated with NBR – the act is fully normal, the couple does what comes naturally. The misuse of NBR without serious reasons would be unnatural.
Cloning: The process of making a clone, a genetically identical copy. Cloning can refer to the technique of producing a genetically identical copy of an organism by replacing the nucleus of an unfertilized ovum with the nucleus of a body cell from the organism.
The first adult mammal cloned was Dolly the Sheep in 1997.
Re #305: the natural law says that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason.
If his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism – the purpose and meaning and nature of sexual intercourse is for babies and it’s for bonding, within marriage, where children can be reared with a father and mother in a stable family unit.
Re #301: Neither the act nor the couple is frustrated with NBR – the act is fully normal, the couple does what comes naturally. The misuse of NBR without serious reasons would be unnatural.
Apart from the naïveté (et al) of so describing Fr Torraco’s reasoning, some seem utterly unable to reason step by step that the fact of assuming 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 fail to see that this opens the door to using sex with anyone or anything, as masturbation, bestiality, homosexuality, IVF, cloning. That is the fact. No one has assumed that any poster here would do these things, but the logic is irrefutable. Is anyone else naïve enough to suppose that some people don’t do these things? Why do they? Because they choose to ignore the natural law, and follow selfism – anything goes.
It is good to do your own homework:
Cloning: The process of making a clone, a genetically identical copy. Cloning can refer to the technique of producing a genetically identical copy of an organism by replacing the nucleus of an unfertilized ovum with the nucleus of a body cell from the organism.
The first adult mammal cloned was Dolly the Sheep in 1997.
D
davidv
Guest
What is their reason for not wanting more? Is the reason moral?
I think your example is taking things to the extreme. Morality is not a one factor (support) based decision. So, not enough information is provided to judge.
H
hellopeople
Guest
I have talked to my wife and we want to have 2 or 3 kids. That is it. Could we support more? I am sure we could. Will there be a period where she is fertile when we don’t want any more kids…yes, and probably for 10 years or more. Is that wrong?
D
davidv
Guest
I don’t know. That is between you and your wife, both equiped with well formed consciences and prayerfully considering God’s will.
V
Vico
Guest
I don’t know if you are missing something or not. I am still trying to understand your required format. I will try again.
(Merriam Webster) contraception (noun): deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation.
Basis: it is immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution.
ABC: artificial birth control disorders the physical constitution.
NFP: natural family planning does not disorder the physical constitution.
Conclusion: of the two ABC and NFP, only ABC is immoral on this basis, due to intentionally disording the physical constitution.
Since ABC and NFP are both contraception, and the conclusion is different for each, contraception being good or bad is not an assumption (else they would both be immoral or not).
X
XinMinny
Guest
An excellent post. Clear, easy to follow. This is good logic - in that it is easy to follow.
However, there is a little bit of a problem, and the problem has been addressed in posts earlier today. The problem lies in the basis.
I maybe do not understand the basis. This basis seems to me to imply that using OTC pain relievers would also be immoral, since they disorder the physical constitution to prevent pain signals from reaching the brain.
Or, am I wrong about how you are using the expression, "physical constitution?’
~minny
H
hellopeople
Guest
This argument is coherent, but your basis is assumed true. I think that you need to prove your basis before I can accept this.
V
Vico
Guest
Also
No, it is not the integrity of the body, because surgery may be restorative, and medications have helped restore function. It is not integrity, but natural order of the physical constitution. Although it is written generally as “intentionally disorder the physical constitution” in this discussion, it is in reference specifically to reproduction, for example the reproductive system (organs, gametes, normal functions, etc.) and inter-related endocrine system (hormones).
It may not be right the way it is expressed because my intent was to include disordered physiological process also in “intentionally disorder the physical constitution”.
Perhaps “intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes” but I do not know the proper medical term.
X
XinMinny
Guest
Vico,
Thanks for the explanation. I am still trying to understand this. Your reference to ‘the reproductive system’ above serves to confuse me a little. Can I insert that into your original line of thought?
Basis: It is immoral to disorder the functioning of the reproductive system.
Then:
Conclusion: ABC is immoral because it violates our basis.
Conclusion: NFP is not immoral because it does not.
Is this the logic?
If so, I am befuddled. The reason for my befuddlement is that this seems to only say:
“I am assuming ABC to be immoral. Then I am using that assumption to prove that ABC is immoral.”
I can’t follow that logic.
Really, that leaves me thinking: It just says that the Church says it’s wrong, so it’s wrong.
Now, I am going to try really hard to extend the thought process a little bit.
Perhaps you mean: “It should be intuitively obvious to everyone that disordering the reproductive system is immoral.” That statement comes before all the rest. Then I can follow the logic. However, I don’t think it is intuitively obvious that ‘disordering the reproductive system’ is necessarily immoral.
Does that follow your thoughts as well, PassingThru, and hellopeople?
Thanks,
Minny
H
hellopeople
Guest
Yes, I agree.
P
PassingThru
Guest
Very well, thank you. And I am glad you took the time. At this point, I would have just yelled something about “using the immorality of ABC to prove the immorality of ABC” as my patience has worn thin.
V
Vico
Guest
No, better not add any mention of reproduction then as it will destroy the logic. I am glad you pointed this out. (No assumption that contraception is immoral.)
Basis: is it immoral to intentionally disorder the physical constitution or physical processes. This must allow for preservation and promotion of life, for example an amputation to save a life is not intended to cause a disorder but to preserve life.
ABC: artificial birth control disorders the physical constitution or physical processes.
NFP: natural family planning does not disorder the physical constitution or physical processes.
Conclusion: of the two ABC and NFP, only ABC is immoral on this basis, due to intentionally disording the physical constitution or physical processes.
It remains to show how the ABC disorders the physical constitution or physical processes. They way some work are shown below.
Hormones: prevent ovulation, fertilization,or implantation
Barriers: prevent fertilization
IUD: prevent implantation
Poisons: destroy reproductive cells
Abortifactants: destroy zygote
A
Abu
Guest
On assisting nature for mankind
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on July 10 2007, EWTN: **
The art of healing is the art of assisting nature in attaining its goal of health. This is perfectly morally legitimate. Assisting nature in attaining its goal is a wonderful thing. Human beings do it in many different ways. For example, the plumbing in your house assists nature in quenching your thirst. The moral problem arises when we oppose nature, as in the case, for example, of in vitro fertilization, so called “gay marriage,” and contraception.
**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on July 10 2007, EWTN: **
The art of healing is the art of assisting nature in attaining its goal of health. This is perfectly morally legitimate. Assisting nature in attaining its goal is a wonderful thing. Human beings do it in many different ways. For example, the plumbing in your house assists nature in quenching your thirst. The moral problem arises when we oppose nature, as in the case, for example, of in vitro fertilization, so called “gay marriage,” and contraception.
- Status