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

[Doc_Keele]

Abu - don’t use big words you don’t know the meaning of:thumbsup:
pet foible is a tautology
the problem is that so many people use circular arguments around here, and I did demonstrate why I believed that what you argued was in fact circular:shrug:

You don’t understand formal argument. I’m not going to debate it with you further, I’ve banged my head against walls long enough on these fora thanks.
Quotation won’t help you I’m afraid. I’m sure you’re aware why?

 

[Abu]

DocKeele
#294 If ABC is wrong because you shouldn’t have sex without running the risk of pregnancy (and no one’s sought to prove that premise at all, but let’s just accept it for the sake of argument), then NFP is exactly the same.
NFP is also abortifacient (under some “Pro-Life” definitions of the term).

#301 In NFP, the couple have sex whilst avoiding pregnancy - therefore the sexual act (and the couple) is frustrated.
#305 The argument for NFP rests on the premise that it is sinful to render sex sterile. All the arguments based on this tend to be circular. Can you prove that this is morally wrong?

These two were answered in my #466.

As Doc Keele has been **unable to substantiate his fantasies **that:

1. a circular argument is used to justify NBR and condemn contraception (post #305), and
2. a circular argument has been used to discover the natural law by right reason (post #568),
   he has chosen to call the description “pet foible”, relating to his “circular argument” fantasy, as useless repetition (a “tautology”).

Now as pet = favorite, and foible = a behavioral attribute that is distinctive and peculiar to an individual, we can see from his two fantasies above that his “peculiar and distinctive attitude” has also become something of a favourite for him, and therefore stretches his particular “ology” (study) of circularity so “taut” as to cause it to snap.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Abu, you’re not well versed in argument. I did indeed describe what it’s a circular argument to claim that the natural law can be found by right reason. For some reason you ignore this.
All the claims that ABC is wrong and NFP aren’t that I have seen are circular. Your post 466 is no argument at all, Abu - you make outrageous claims for it that aren’t justified in the slightest. It’s “natural” to die of septicaemia from a rose thorn prick. Casuistry, Abu.

Maybe pet foible isn’t a tautology - it’s no biggie is it? Smokescreen, Abu, smokescreen.

You’re arguing ad hominem now and the debate is getting nowhere. You’re just blustering.

Try posting something substantive? If you want a reply anyway:shrug:

 

[CatofAlexandria]

I’m not trying to go against what you said - I think I understand it, but it sounds (IMO) to me not far off from and argument like - if God wants you to become pregnant, regardless of what method you’re using to avoid getting pregnant, He can cause you to become pregnant - and that concerns me. It makes me think - we what the heck does it matter if I could get pregnant anyway? Believe me, I do understand that this, as when we tried NFP, we had what were called “break through ovulation” - or as one of the NFP teachers told me - “well, I guess God thinks you should be pregnant - congrats!” when it was obvious, congragulations was nothing I desired. I guess I do pretty much agree with you about if God wants you pregnant regardless of your use of NFP or even ABC, then He’ll allow you to get pregnant (I know this is a paraphrase but it sounds like what you’re saying)- am I off here, because I’ve gotten balled out on here for saying that before.
God Bless
Rye

Thanks for your reply, Rye.

Yes, I have also had a problem with the argument, “if it happened, God must have desired that it happen, and it would have happened no matter what,” which always seems to me to be rather vacuous and strange, and I think “hey, what about my free will here!” I realize that it sounds as if I might be treading dangerously close to this argument, but I am not. As I said, we cooperate with God in the creation of new life (just like we cooperate with God through free will in virtue, in worship, and everything we do). Sometimes, we can discern that it is not the right time to have a child, and sometimes we discern that it is. When I say “discerning God’s will” in the first part, I mean, normatively, what should happen, or what God would desire for us. However, “God’s will” in the sense that “oh, look, I was trying not to get pregnant, but I did anyway,” might not be the same normative, desirous will, but a merely allowing will depending on the circumstances. Openness to God’s will–both through discerning what God wants to happen and in working with what God has allowed to happen–is a virtue going back to Mary’s “fiat”–“Let it be done!” Prayerfully cooperating with God and saying, “Lord, let it be done!” is the open to life mentality. In short, I do not believe that what God desires will always happen, because we cooperate with God when we create life, and sometimes, we can be wrong.

But there is another element of the Church’s teaching on contraception that I did not mention in the previous post because I had mentioned it to amy before, and that’s the physical “ordered towards procreation” element. I describe my understanding here, if that helps: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6473522&postcount=13. It’s a two part test. The purpose of my last post was simply to show that it is possible to be mentally open to life while practicing NFP.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Yes, I have also had a problem with the argument, “if it happened, God must have desired that it happen, and it would have happened no matter what,”

or the strange logic that God is pecularily behind the creation of human life in a way that doesn’t apply to the other workings of the universe, because it seems very odd that God actually desires life to be created in some of the circumstances. It may be in his permissive will, but not in his express will.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Abu, you’re not well versed in argument. I did indeed describe what it’s a circular argument to claim that the natural law can be found by right reason. For some reason you ignore this.
All the claims that ABC is wrong and NFP aren’t that I have seen are circular. Your post 466 is no argument at all, Abu - you make outrageous claims for it that aren’t justified in the slightest. It’s “natural” to die of septicaemia from a rose thorn prick. Casuistry, Abu.

Maybe pet foible isn’t a tautology - it’s no biggie is it? Smokescreen, Abu, smokescreen.

You’re arguing ad hominem now and the debate is getting nowhere. You’re just blustering.

Try posting something substantive? If you want a reply anyway:shrug:

and also you use fantasy in a bizarre sense, and fail to appreciate that fantasies cannot be substantiated by definition?

 

[ryecroft]

Thanks for your reply, Rye.

Yes, I have also had a problem with the argument, “if it happened, God must have desired that it happen, and it would have happened no matter what,” which always seems to me to be rather vacuous and strange, and I think “hey, what about my free will here!” I realize that it sounds as if I might be treading dangerously close to this argument, but I am not. As I said, we cooperate with God in the creation of new life (just like we cooperate with God through free will in virtue, in worship, and everything we do). Sometimes, we can discern that it is not the right time to have a child, and sometimes we discern that it is. When I say “discerning God’s will” in the first part, I mean, normatively, what should happen, or what God would desire for us. However, “God’s will” in the sense that “oh, look, I was trying not to get pregnant, but I did anyway,” might not be the same normative, desirous will, but a merely allowing will depending on the circumstances. Openness to God’s will–both through discerning what God wants to happen and in working with what God has allowed to happen–is a virtue going back to Mary’s “fiat”–“Let it be done!” Prayerfully cooperating with God and saying, “Lord, let it be done!” is the open to life mentality. In short, I do not believe that what God desires will always happen, because we cooperate with God when we create life, and sometimes, we can be wrong.

But there is another element of the Church’s teaching on contraception that I did not mention in the previous post because I had mentioned it to amy before, and that’s the physical “ordered towards procreation” element. I describe my understanding here, if that helps: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6473522&postcount=13. It’s a two part test. The purpose of my last post was simply to show that it is possible to be mentally open to life while practicing NFP.

I appreciate what you wrote, but I guess that personally, I will always have a problem with someone saying that anything has changed whether I get pregnant while on for example the pill or using NFP - if I am using one or the other and I still wind up pregnant - well it seems with NFP, the idea is “oh, I guess God wanted you go get pregnant” but with ABC, the general outcome is “crud - did you miss a day or something - I’m really sorry” - either way, the outcome is the same - and either way, the woman will carry the pregnancy to term or not. I don’t buy the argument I keep seeing about (and this is paraphrased) - well what about grandma - either she can die naturally or we can euthanize her - the outcome is the same- I will never conceed that’s the same - because it’s not - but I suppoze that’s a different debate that I’m not trying to dredge up. Even with the birth control pill in this case not working, it can be said to be God’s will. If He desires it to occur, it’s going to happen regardless or NFP or pill or IUD.
God Bless
Rye

 

[CatofAlexandria]

Rye,

I wasn’t trying to distinguish between ABC and NFP in my post. This was meant to address the specific question of whether you can practice Natural Family Planning and still be “open to life” in the theological sense. Of course children that are conceived because the pill has failed are no less “willed” by God, whether it’s desiring or permitting will. It’s tricky stuff when you try to get into the intricacies of God’s will. He’s much smarter than I, and knows a heck of a lot more. I don’t like to put words in His mouth.

 

[presidentjlh]

I agree! No one, NO ONE I’ve ever met or talked to has answered this question. These answers are saying that NFP is not an action to render a marital act sterile, but it IS because you have the knowledge that you are sterile/infertile at that moment in time. This is PLAGUING me and I cannot find a sufficient answer!

The periods of time where the female is less likely to become pregnant are still open to a chance of procreation. It is alright for a married couple to only engage in marital relations during this time as God made this a form of natural conception. If God made it, it is good.

 

[ryecroft]

The periods of time where the female is less likely to become pregnant are still open to a chance of procreation. It is alright for a married couple to only engage in marital relations during this time as God made this a form of natural conception. If God made it, it is good.

What you said above, I understand, because, having tried NFP and having wound up preggers twice, I am living proof that you can play by every last rule of NFP and still get pregnant. And I am fairly sure what I’m about to say isn’t what your point was. But if it’s simple enough for God to make a woman have an extra ovulation, and get pregnant isn’t so different from allowing her to get prenant while following ever around taking the pill. I guess this is what confuses me most - I mean if God wants something to happen, it will happen regardless of what someone does to attempt to stop it. Because of this, I really have a hard time understanding, why He would care which method was used. Either way, a pregnancy can occur. It almost osunds as if someone might imply that using NFP is a more “God friendly” way of becoming or not becoming pregnant. I’m not trying to annoy or exasperate and I apologize if that’s what I’m doing.I can honestly say, that I can tell no difference being with my husband when we’re using the pill and when I’ve tried to be off of it. More fear of bleeding out or getting pregnant? Yes but more close? No - I wish I did, as I read all of these posts about how much closer to their husbands people feel.
God Bless
Rye

 

[Vico]

… I really have a hard time understanding, why He would care which method was used. Either way, a pregnancy can occur.
…
I can honestly say, that I can tell no difference being with my husband when we’re using the pill and when I’ve tried to be off of it. …

The explainations for use of NFP vs ABC from the Magisterium are not based upon pregnancy occuring or not, or of how one feels in the marital relationship. The basis given by Pope Paul VI in (1968) Humanae Vitae 13 is our relationship with God, respecting God as having dominion over the sexual faculties, where we are the ministers of His design:

“…to experience the gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by the Creator. Just as man does not have unlimited dominion over his body in general, so also, and with more particular reason, he has no such dominion over his specifically sexual faculties, for these are concerned by their very nature with the generation of life, of which God is the source.”