Why is "Natural Family Planning" ok when other contraceptive methods are not?

[ryecroft]

Old Style Families

My grandmother, wife of a cotton farmer in Texas, had fourteen children. She died at age 38, in 1917, giving birth to the last two, twins, that also died.

I really feel badly for your grandmother. And please understand I in no way mean anything negative by anything I say and I’m not tyring to be sarcastic (no one can tell how you sound on here!) - but do you think that had she had access to how to use NFP that she would have wanted to have that many children? I have no doubt that since she was in the states that less than three years later many of the family had died from the influenza epidemic that claimed so many thousands upon thousands. But you also said she was 38 and had 14 children - it makes me wonder how old she was when she got married. But it makes me want to bring up another, well I guess point is the main way to put it. I might should just begin another thread, but I thought I’d see how it went on here first. When I got married, I know that I wasn’t thinking, nor was my husband thinking - “oh boy, now we can go have babies!” - I see on here so often that people say that the main purpose of marriage is to have children. I guess I’m just the odd person out, because when we got married, we thought about how happy we were to be together and not have to live without the other. How we’d be able to go on holidays together and not ever have to be apart (except when he was out to sea)- we had thought that it might be nice to have children, but we knew we wanted to have time to get to know how to live with the other. Although I had stayed with him when we were in the same state, we hadn’t really lived together. I worked in Florida and went to school and he was in Washington and often out on a sub. We also knew that I needed to be on ABC at that point due to my health issues but that we wouldn’t really stand in the way of pregnancy - (and believe me, I did get pregnant - on abc and on NFP when we were able to try it for certain amounts of time). I guess my point is that I see too often on here where it is said that the point of marriage is to have children - I believe that may be something that can be a product of marriage but to us getting to know our new spouse was our main point. Currently, I pray my husband will get excited about trying to have kids again - I ask all of your prayers so that we get the o.k. from the doctors but taht also we have no huge financial reasons to put off trying even after that. Sorry about going off on a tangent!
God Bless
Rye

 

[Humbled1]

Now that the scriptural reasons have been discussed, let’s talk about the practical reasons for NFP:

Men: No matter how long you’ve been with the same woman, we “get the priviledge” of turning into a raging bull every month. It’s the highest quality, with no physical barriers. No, we don’t want to wait, but we need to cast aside instant gratification in favor of depth for our wives and families. It builds appreciation and desire, not just for the physical intimacy, but the emotional and spiritual as well. For how many men does sex become a routine and is taken for granted? How many men will get bored and develop wandering eyes due to the routine? When sex is not an option, it’s natural to get re-aquainted with the woman friend you fell in love with. Nothing else to do, might as well talk. Real communication occurs, a renewed interest in your one-person fan club. More sacrifice = more intensity; physically, emotionally and spiritually. Love grows. Anticipation. Less likely for lust of pop culture’s hotties to ruin our marriages. Less likely for our kids to grow up without dads. More sacrifice increases our capacity to sacrifice. It makes us stronger and able to handle more responsibility.

Women: There’s more emotional, spiritual, and physical intimacy with NFP, especially if you can help your man get more religion, more Catholic. The reasons are good and just. Pop culture media continues it’s assault on traditional marriage by tempting us men with hotties and other instant gratification that takes us farther from true, romantic love. Men (and women) are growing tired and frustrated with the unsatisfying, never-ending shallow pursuit of highs that don’t last, lust, materialism, etc. Men need adventure. NFP is adventure. A raging bull awaits.

If we don’t take steps to build stronger marriages, the history of the world will pay the price. Pop culture media has led us astray for too long. Who are they? They’re nobody. Don’t conform to their shallow ways. Come back to the deep.

I am so incredibly sick of the “holier than thou while having better sex” mentality of the NFP crowd. So, basically, you’re saying that if sex is available at all times, then I’m putting my husband in danger of grave moral sin… oh, and that I’m losing out on a more emotional, spiritual, and physical intimacy on my side of things.

We don’t use ABC or NFP, we simply accept children as we are blessed with them. So other than those postpartum healing weeks, the marital embrace is available to both of us at any given time.

So, in answer to Ryes question, yeah, there are those of us out there who (joyfully!) end up with “Old Style Catholic Families” even in this day and age.

 

[Vico]

I really feel badly for your grandmother. … but do you think that had she had access to how to use NFP that she would have wanted to have that many children? … I see on here so often that people say that the main purpose of marriage is to have children. … I believe that may be something that can be a product of marriage but to us getting to know our new spouse was our main point. …

You are very sympathetic. At that time, and living the farm life, families started very early. Grandmother married young and had her children at ages 15, 16, 19, 20, 22?, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29?, 31, 35, and 38. A steady stream. My mother, living on the farm, was married and had her first at age 16. Back then, grade school education may have been the norm. (My mother said they had a one room school, with all the grades together.) I doubt is she would have any knowledge of NFP.

There certainly is a value to being together apart from fecundity. Isn’t this the most romantic thing you ever read?

“St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us. . . . I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.” – St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Eph. 20,8G 62,146-147.

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"2364 The married couple forms “the intimate partnership of life and love established by the Creator and governed by his laws; …”

And also there is transmission of life:

"2398 Fecundity is a good, a gift and an end of marriage. By giving life, spouses participate in God’s fatherhood. "

“**2371 **Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny.”

To tie it all back into NFP, consider that the broad pupose of marriage may be fulfilled, even when the couple is not able to reproduce due to poor health.

 

[una_fides]

Please let me know if the following quote from Humana Vitae is sufficient -

When needed to be taken for theraputic reasons, the use of “the pill” is not immoral. Humanae Vitae states, “the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever” (HV 15).

Thank you for the quote. Let’s break down the quote into the requirements:

1. There must be a therapeutic reason
2. The reason must be *necessary *to use it
3. The intention of use must be to cure bodily diseases
4. One cannot in any way intend to use it for contraceptive purposes

I think those pretty much coincide with my earlier assessment. Regarding the use of the pill to avoid cramps, while I’m sure cramps are very painful and I feel for those who are in this situation, I do not think you can classify cramps as a “bodily disease” for which the pill somehow is used as a cure. Unfortunately, we have pain in our bodies that we must experience. I’ve had my male shares of pains as well, and I offer them up to God. In fact, I had a certain ailment years ago for which I had to go to the emergency room, and the pain was so excruciating it caused vomiting. I spoke to a lady there who had also experienced the same thing, and she said she would take birthing a child instead of going through that pain again any day. So despite the fact that women do undergo pain, us men also undergo our share of pain as well. God has so ordained, and we offer it up to him, and we grow from it and become holier people. I’m sure now because I said that there may be those of the female gender to jump all over me, but I’m just calling it like I see it.

 

[ManOnFire]

I am so incredibly sick of the “holier than thou while having better sex” mentality of the NFP crowd. So, basically, you’re saying that if sex is available at all times, then I’m putting my husband in danger of grave moral sin… oh, and that I’m losing out on a more emotional, spiritual, and physical intimacy on my side of things.

We don’t use ABC or NFP, we simply accept children as we are blessed with them. So other than those postpartum healing weeks, the marital embrace is available to both of us at any given time.

So, in answer to Ryes question, yeah, there are those of us out there who (joyfully!) end up with “Old Style Catholic Families” even in this day and age.

I think you misunderstood me. I was intending to spread the word to Catholic families who use ABC that a more intimate and practical way exists. I wasn’t trying to say that you are denying more intimacy for your relationship by not abstaining when just the opposite is true. I admire you.

From what I understand, a woman’s body does not release eggs during pregnancy. Since the average is one egg per month, a woman with many kids is likely to have many additional months of fertility than other women on average. Check with your doctor.

 

[ryecroft]

You are very sympathetic. At that time, and living the farm life, families started very early. Grandmother married young and had her children at ages 15, 16, 19, 20, 22?, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29?, 31, 35, and 38. A steady stream. My mother, living on the farm, was married and had her first at age 16. Back then, grade school education may have been the norm. (My mother said they had a one room school, with all the grades together.) I doubt is she would have any knowledge of NFP.

There certainly is a value to being together apart from fecundity. Isn’t this the most romantic thing you ever read?

Not to be rude, but to answer your question, no, that isn’t the most romantic thing I ever heard! That idea scares the living - well you know what out of me! Even in todays society, with the better living conditions, etc., I don’t think I could ever handle more than 4. Quite frankly, I was very glad to have a plan with my husband to not try to begin a family for the first 3-5 years until we were more financially stable and had gotten to know each other better as a married couple. Honestly, I have a friend who came from a family with 11 other children and she told me a great deal of what she went through. She really hated it - she has said she will have on or two kids with her husband and that’s it. She felt she never had any privacy, there was never enough of anything to go around - I could go on, but that wouldn’t help anything. I guess my point is is that not all people like coming from large families - and I have to wonder if the knowledge regarding NFP were available at that time, how many women would have availed themselves of this knowledge. I’m glad it worked for your Grandmother, but I think I would go bloody well nuts if I had that many kids! I love kids but, I couldn’t handle that -
God Bless
Rye

 

[Vico]

ryecroft;6235759[COLOR=darkslateblue:
[QUOTE]
Not to be rude, but to answer your question, no, that isn’t the most romantic thing I ever heard! … I don’t think I could ever handle more than 4. … I guess my point is is that not all people like coming from large families - and I have to wonder if the knowledge regarding NFP were available at that time, how many women would have availed themselves of this knowledge. I’m glad it worked for your Grandmother, …
[/QUOTE]
I suppose having 14 children did not work to well for my Grandmother, if long life was the goal. Plus my Grandfather had a lot of children to take care of; he did not remarry. The first form of NFP, total abstinance, was available since Adam and Eve.

Well, what I was suggesting as romantic was the quote, not having a large family. Actually I was emphasizing the unity of the relationship apart from reproduction, i.e., the broad purpose:

“St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us. . . . I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you.” – St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in Eph. 20,8G 62,146-147.

 

[Humbled1]

I understand why you would want that - I did too at first. It seemed that I would a different answer from different Priests and even a Bishop as well as a Theologian and even a Professor (I was working on a master’s in Ecclesiastical History)- when I came looking for answers here it didn’t really get any betterexcept that there were others that understood my situation and could at least empathize and explain what they had done. So I try to go with something that the Church has published- (although I do agree that Fr. Serpa has done an excellent job explaining the stand of the Church - and if my eyes did not deceive me, I believe he is one that answers questions for EWTN online-or there’s another Fr. V. Serpa)- Please let me know if the following quote from Humana Vitae is sufficient -

When needed to be taken for theraputic reasons, the use of “the pill” is not immoral. Humanae Vitae states, “the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever” (HV 15).

I must say for this one, I wanted to do one more thing - I wanted to define theraputic - I would have said “medical” but I thought since the word used in HV was theraputic I should stick with it-
(this is from Miriam Webster Dictionary BTW)
Theraputicf or relating to the treatment of disease or disorders by remedial agents or methods
2 : providing or assisting in a cure : curative, medicinal

the word actually comes from the Greek and means to treat or attend to. I know there are a couple more quotes I could find (but it might take me a while) - but I hope this is sufficient. I’m not trying to cause scandal or anything - but when the Church gives a quote, no matter what certain people on here say, I will believe what the Church says. There are so many times where it doesn’t seem quite as clear but I believe this time the Church is clear.
God Bless
Rye aka Annie

And by una fides
*"Thank you for the quote. Let’s break down the quote into the requirements:

1. There must be a therapeutic reason
2. The reason must be necessary to use it
3. The intention of use must be to cure bodily diseases
4. One cannot in any way intend to use it for contraceptive purposes"*

I like the way Una broke this up. I think point number four is extremely important.

Someone is not suddenly rendered sterile when needing to take the pill for therapeutic reasons, and it was stated by Rye that her husband is not willing to try again to get pregnant. Therefore, they are using the pill as a contraceptive as well.

With full knowledge of the way the pill works to prevent a viable pregnancy, it would seem that utilizing NFP would be the prudent way to avoid conception as well as accidental abortions.

 

[ryecroft]

And by una fides
*"Thank you for the quote. Let’s break down the quote into the requirements:

1. There must be a therapeutic reason
2. The reason must be necessary to use it
3. The intention of use must be to cure bodily diseases
4. One cannot in any way intend to use it for contraceptive purposes"*

I like the way Una broke this up. I think point number four is extremely important.

Someone is not suddenly rendered sterile when needing to take the pill for therapeutic reasons, and it was stated by Rye that her husband is not willing to try again to get pregnant. Therefore, they are using the pill as a contraceptive as well.

With full knowledge of the way the pill works to prevent a viable pregnancy, it would seem that utilizing NFP would be the prudent way to avoid conception as well as accidental abortions.

Excuse me - perhaps I did not make myself clear -I don’t believe I ever said that my husband was unwilling to have children with me or to try again- I believe what I said was that I don’t think my husband is excited about trying to get pregnant. At this time, I would be well within my rights and not committing sin if I stayed on the pill for medical reasons for the rest of my life. I would like to have children if medically feesable -right now, it isn’t. I went off the pill to see how my body would do on other meds and wound up needing a transfusion again. Now the docctors have told me I have to wait longer if we are to try again. My husband has been with me through over 7 pregnancies none of which have ever been successful. If he’s a little gun shy to try again, I can understand that and anyone that can’t needs to think about what he’s had to deal with. But, even if I could go off birth control, I would never trick my husband into getting me pregnant. Currnetly getting pregnant is not an option-but perhaps in a couple of months the doctors will feel I’m well enough to try again. My staying on the pill is for theraputic health reasons - I am not on it because as you said my husband is not willing to try. He has not said he is to my face, but Hell will freeze over before I force a child on my husband. I’ve seen it happen before where girl friends and wives “oops” missed a couple of days with the pill or “accidentally” did something else then went to their spouse signifigant other and said “guess what were pregnant!” It’s NOT good for most marriages - it undermines trust. My husbands feelings are not the reason I’m on the pill- I would be on the pill even if I was not married or sexually active. The only reason I made the comment about my husband was to hopefully get some advice on how to help him deal with it (preferably other than the people that like to say "go to project Rachel… - if that’s your advice, please just don’t even bother to type it in).
God Bless
Rye

 

[Humbled1]

Excuse me - perhaps I did not make myself clear -I don’t believe I ever said that my husband was unwilling to have children with me or to try again- I believe what I said was that I don’t think my husband is excited about trying to get pregnant. At this time, I would be well within my rights and not committing sin if I stayed on the pill for medical reasons for the rest of my life. I would like to have children if medically feesable -right now, it isn’t. I went off the pill to see how my body would do on other meds and wound up needing a transfusion again. Now the docctors have told me I have to wait longer if we are to try again. My husband has been with me through over 7 pregnancies none of which have ever been successful. If he’s a little gun shy to try again, I can understand that and anyone that can’t needs to think about what he’s had to deal with. But, even if I could go off birth control, I would never trick my husband into getting me pregnant. Currnetly getting pregnant is not an option-but perhaps in a couple of months the doctors will feel I’m well enough to try again. My staying on the pill is for theraputic health reasons - I am not on it because as you said my husband is not willing to try. He has not said he is to my face, but Hell will freeze over before I force a child on my husband. I’ve seen it happen before where girl friends and wives “oops” missed a couple of days with the pill or “accidentally” did something else then went to their spouse signifigant other and said “guess what were pregnant!” It’s NOT good for most marriages - it undermines trust. My husbands feelings are not the reason I’m on the pill- I would be on the pill even if I was not married or sexually active. The only reason I made the comment about my husband was to hopefully get some advice on how to help him deal with it (preferably other than the people that like to say "go to project Rachel… - if that’s your advice, please just don’t even bother to type it in).
God Bless
Rye

I apologize, I meant to say that at this point he was not wanting to try again. And yes, I can understand why. I wouldn’t advise anyone to trick their spouse into a pregnancy either.

However, my point was that at this point, you are utilizing the pill for both its therapeutic results and its contraceptive properties. At this point, a pregnancy is ill-advised medically, therefore you have a serious enough reason to utilize NFP to prevent one. Relying on the pill for this would mean, in fact that you are utilizing it for both the therapeutic and conraceptive properties.

Being “well within your rights” to use the pill for therapeutic reasons does not make the potential consequences of your body aborting children any less problematic.

Because you are aware of the possibility, I would say that it would be prudent to utilize NFP to prevent the potential pregnancies/abortions until you are ready to conceive (per you, your spouse, and physician).

Please know that I am only saying this matter of factly, and not in any other way. I understand that you have had to defend your using the pill for the therapeutic properties of it, and I am not questioning that reason.

 

[una_fides]

And by una fides
*"Thank you for the quote. Let’s break down the quote into the requirements:

1. There must be a therapeutic reason
2. The reason must be necessary to use it
3. The intention of use must be to cure bodily diseases
4. One cannot in any way intend to use it for contraceptive purposes"*

I like the way Una broke this up. I think point number four is extremely important.

Someone is not suddenly rendered sterile when needing to take the pill for therapeutic reasons, and it was stated by Rye that her husband is not willing to try again to get pregnant. Therefore, they are using the pill as a contraceptive as well.

With full knowledge of the way the pill works to prevent a viable pregnancy, it would seem that utilizing NFP would be the prudent way to avoid conception as well as accidental abortions.

Safest bet is abstinence.

 

[ryecroft]

I apologize, I meant to say that at this point he was not wanting to try again. And yes, I can understand why. I wouldn’t advise anyone to trick their spouse into a pregnancy either.

However, my point was that at this point, you are utilizing the pill for both its therapeutic results and its contraceptive properties. At this point, a pregnancy is ill-advised medically, therefore you have a serious enough reason to utilize NFP to prevent one. Relying on the pill for this would mean, in fact that you are utilizing it for both the therapeutic and conraceptive properties.

Being “well within your rights” to use the pill for therapeutic reasons does not make the potential consequences of your body aborting children any less problematic.

Because you are aware of the possibility, I would say that it would be prudent to utilize NFP to prevent the potential pregnancies/abortions until you are ready to conceive (per you, your spouse, and physician).

Please know that I am only saying this matter of factly, and not in any other way. I understand that you have had to defend your using the pill for the therapeutic properties of it, and I am not questioning that reason.

Actually, I need to apologize as well - I should have been more specific. When I said I couldn’t try for another couple of months at least I should have said that I have had to go back on ABC in order to help control the bleeding that led to me having to get another transfusion. Believe me, I wish that NFP would solve that problem, but it doesn’t. As far as the abortifacient properties go of ABC, I’m afraid that until I see a conclusive study, showing that without a doubt, this occurs - instead of seeing the words “may occur” or “could be an unintended consequence”, I’m not going to worry about it. Also, Fr. Serpa has come in on this one and I’m going along with what he says. I find him to be someone who will tell it like it is regardless of if people like or want to hear it or not. NFP is something that is dangerous for me to be on as well - without the ABC, I can wind up loosing too much blood. We had tried it twice before and stuck with it religiously - once with a monitor being used included so I thought I had backed up myself. We know we’ve had two pregnancies while religiously using it and while trying to be off of birth contol for a 6 months in order to possibly be able to try again (we try some other meds to try to help the situation), it appears that we may have had another that ended very early on. Until the Doctors at this point say I can go off of the ABC and try again, I don’t really have a choice but to use the ABC - it’s the best thing for what happens with my body. I can’t just go on having debilitating periods for the rest of my life and I will not go through a hysterectomy in order to “solve” it as this seems to be the best guess as to how to stop it. While there is a chance that we’ll be able to have children, I’ll continue on this path. Regardless of what some say on here (and I’m not meaning you -) I have someone I speak with spiritually with regards to this siutaion. I trust that persons judgement as a spiritual director and will continue to pray for understanding of what God wants.
God Bless
Rye

 

[hellopeople]

Can someone post a study or some sort of conclusive proof that the pill causes unwanted abortions? I have read this in this thread and have never heard that before. My son was conceived while my wife was on the pill, and he definitely wasn’t aborted.

 

[Vico]

Can someone post a study or some sort of conclusive proof that the pill causes unwanted abortions? I have read this in this thread and have never heard that before. My son was conceived while my wife was on the pill, and he definitely wasn’t aborted.

I don’t have knowledge of study, but there is the general medical information on the three ways the hormonal contraception (HC) works.

1. usually stops the body from releasing an egg from the ovary,
2. changes the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg,
3. can also make the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation.

So, from 3, a fertilized egg may exist and not be able to implant.

When estrogen and progestin are both in the HC, all three above can occur. When just progestin is present, then usually 2, but also 1 may occur.

 

[hellopeople]

I don’t have knowledge of study, but there is the general medical information on the three ways the hormonal contraception (HC) works.

1. usually stops the body from releasing an egg from the ovary,
2. changes the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg,
3. can also make the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation.

So, from 3, a fertilized egg may exist and not be able to implant.

When estrogen and progestin are both in the HC, all three above can occur. When just progestin is present, then usually 2, but also 1 may occur.

Yeah I looked into it and it seems that it might cause a very early abortion. Interesting, I never knew that.

 

[Vico]

I appreciate all the work you put into these posts. I really do. But, I think fatigue is setting in for me.

I am hoisting a flag, and calling a draw. Although I don’t think your flag is unfolded just yet!

If anyone has any interest in keeping the discussion going in a different direction, maybe some otherwise content Catholics can pick it up with there thoughts from before I hijacked. (For them to discuss, not I)

Thanks again, M

An idea to think about, that was previously mentioned in this thread is that of what Catholics consent to in the marriage covenent with regard to having children.

It is necessary to be open to children if they result from conjugal relations, and this has been mentioned before. Some think that the couple must intend to have children, but that is not technically correct. A couple can plan never to have conjugal relations but still exchange the right to have conjugal relations if either of them change their minds. The couple must also be capable of conjugal relations.

 

[petras52]

Married Catholics are told that practicing artificial birth control is an intrinsic evil with grave consequences to their souls. To me an act so evil should apply to people of all faiths. Yet Catholic theology also teaches that people of other denominations can be saved. This implies that, all other things being equal, married “Larry Lutheran” who is allowed to practice abc in his religion gets a “free pass” while “Charlie Catholic” who does the same burns in hell forever…this is something that’s troubled me for quite a while and my priest didn’t have a good answer… any thoughts out there? thanks

 

[una_fides]

Married Catholics are told that practicing artificial birth control is an intrinsic evil with grave consequences to their souls. To me an act so evil should apply to people of all faiths. Yet Catholic theology also teaches that people of other denominations can be saved. This implies that, all other things being equal, married “Larry Lutheran” who is allowed to practice abc in his religion gets a “free pass” while “Charlie Catholic” who does the same burns in hell forever…this is something that’s troubled me for quite a while and my priest didn’t have a good answer… any thoughts out there? thanks

Simple answer: There is no salvation outside the Church.

Basically unless in your example Larry Lutheran is invincibly ignorant of the Catholic faith and can make perfect acts of charity and contrition for his sins, which is difficult for a Catholic to do who knows how to so imagine for a Lutheran who is told he doesn’t need to do so, then he cannot be saved through an implicit baptism of desire that would place him within the sould of the Catholic Church though he would not be observably a member of the visible Body.

Don’t let your priest deceive you. Vatican II did not change this dogma. We must interpret and understand Vatican II in light of the teachings that came before it. (see my link in my signature below for more on this dogma.)

Regarding “Larry Lutheran’s” use of contraception, it is a violation of the natural law, which also he has to be invincibly ignorant in order to not be held culpable for his actions. Contraception may arguably fall into the category of one that requires serious thought and deliberation in order to understand why it is contrary to the natural law, and as such, there could be more people invincibly ignorant as to why it is sinful. However, when as a result of contraception, he then becomes more likely to cheat on his spouse because he is using sex primarily or solely for pleasure, then he will be most certainly guilty for the adultery or even for the desire thereof.

Hope this helps.

 

[Doc_Keele]

This stuff about the combined oral contraceptive pill causing abortions is dubious, because it ignores the difference in the endometirum between an ovulatory and an anovulatory cycle. If there is an issue, it will be with the low-dose COCP, not the older versions.

 

[Vico]

This stuff about the combined oral contraceptive pill causing abortions is dubious, because it ignores the difference in the endometirum between an ovulatory and an anovulatory cycle. If there is an issue, it will be with the low-dose COCP, not the older versions.

The action of different types of pills was also mentioned before.

.

POP = progestin only pill
original: just progestin (synthetic progesterone)

COCP = combined oral contraceptive pill
combination: progestin + ethinyl estradiol (most have 20-35 mcg, with a few containing 50 mcg)

Due to breakthough ovulation, both POP and COCP can lead to an abortion!

When reading research and summaries it is good to know the definition of pregnancy. Medical consensus is that a pregnancy begins at implantation, usually six days after conception. The religious definition of abortion (termination of conception) is different than that generally used medical definition (termination of pregnancy).

POPs vary in primary mode of action, based upon dose, see:
medic8.com/healthguide/articles/minipill.html

Also COCP can cause abortions (reduce likelihood of implantation). Also these three ways are also common to POP even though the primary mechanism is not specified. (There is always possibility of breakthrough ovulation.)

“Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium which reduce the likelihood of implantation.” – Ortho-Cept in Physicians’ Desk Reference (Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics, 1998).