- Status
1
1ke
Guest
Engaging in or refraining from sex at specific times is family planning, but it is not contraction. The Church clearly teaches contraception is intrinsically evil. Therefore, never moral.
Contraception and Abstinence are both forms of controlling/spacing children but they are not the same thing, Contraception is an action before, during, or after intercourse that attempts to frustrate the end (keep sperm from reaching egg). Abstinence is not contraception, there is no act of intercourse.
It is not about agreement or disagreement.
It is about the truth, about what the Church actually teaches. If you are not open to leaning new things, that is your decision. But do not post inaccurate things as if they are what the Church teaches, because what you posted is not correct. When incorrect statements pertaining to church teaching are made, it can mislead others. So, no it is not “whatever”.
B
Bookcat
Guest
No it is not.
It is not at matter open to disagreement.
And it has nothing to do with “natural means” either.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Again not contraception but just the way the body works. And one does not breastfeed in order prevent ovulation -but to feed the child.
B
Bookcat
Guest
NFP is not Contraception - period.
Just see the Teachings of the Church as to what is contraception and what is period continence (NFP). Two rather different matters.
Just see the Teachings of the Church as to what is contraception and what is period continence (NFP). Two rather different matters.
R
Rico_S
Guest
Yes…one breastfeeds to feed the child, but if done in a particular way, it can be an effective way of delaying fertility. Feeding doesn’t have to be done in a manner that will delay fertility, but people will choose to breastfeed in that manner in order to delay pregancy. According to Ike’s, that clearly falls within the definition of contraception.
P
pensmama87
Guest
Ehhhhhhhhh, maybe (and effectiveness varies enormously from woman to woman or even baby to baby based on baby’s temperament, etc.)
I would say it is more accurate to describe it as nursing behaviors that don’t encourage an early return of fertility - e.g. you’re not using substitutes for nursing and holding. Some women will have an early return no matter what, but the idea is that many Western parenting practices promotes early return of fertility. In some cultures and places, it’s not a specific regimen - it’s just what you do with your baby.
R
Rico_S
Guest
Oh I get it. (and remember effectiveness is not determining factor of whether something is contraceptive or not). But I know women that choose to breastfeed in this manner in order to prevent ovulation. It absolutely falls into Ike’s definition of contraception.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Mothers can make many decisions regarding breastfeeding. Baby, though, has to cooperate.
If baby is actively feeding in a manner to delay fertility, then he is probably taking what he needs, and mom is benefiting from not having cycles. Producing milk for a baby is work on the body, and the natural baby spacing that would occur, benefits both mom and child.
I’ve had three kids, and none of mine would nurse if they were not interested in nursing.
R
Rico_S
Guest
Be at peace, I don’t believe that breastfeeding mothers are sinning in any way. However, I believe if we use Iks definition, it’s undeniable that a mother who chooses to breastfeed in a particular fashion to delay ovulation is using contraception.
P
pensmama87
Guest
I disagree - she’s feeding her baby and subsequently enjoying one of the side benefits that many (though not all) get.
There’s nothing artificial about not using pacifiers or bottles, or sleeping with your baby. The one thing that might be a bit weird is waking up a (healthy, growing) baby. I don’t know if such a woman is sinning, but I would question her sanity.
B
Bookcat
Guest
One would use the Churches definition of contraception and what the Church judges is contraception and what is* not* contraception.
R
Rico_S
Guest
Excellent. Could you post it so I can see how it meshes with Ikes?
B
Bookcat
Guest
There are many sources out there…here is a brief one:
Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI (with emph)
**
497. When is it moral to regulate births?**
2368-2369
2399
The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.
498. What are immoral means of birth control?
2370-2372
Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
NB: NFP is a form of “periodic continence”.
Contraception is an immoral means of regulating births.
R
Rico_S
Guest
Thanks…this one lines up with Ike’s, so my contention is valid if this is the definition.
Do all the church sources have the same definition? I seem to recall that “artificial” was a big part of Humana Vitae?
B
Bookcat
Guest
You mean that breastfeeding is contraception? No it is not considered contraception.
God designed the martial act as well as the body of the mother who is exclusively breast feeding her child for the heath of the child. Such was the norm in the past - though of course not everywhere (some richer persons had ‘nurses’ to nurse their children). Just what one did with the kid.
One feeds ones child and yes often that can mean too that there is that spacing of Children. Such is yes also effect - in addition the the nutrition etc etc for the baby.
Tis the design of God (just like the wifes fertility cycle) - we did not come up with it - it is part and partial to motherhood for mothers who just had a baby so that there would be a greater possibility that they would not get pregnant with while caring for a very young child. One is not doing something to hinder conception -using say some chemical pill to make the body do unnatural cycles etc-- one is simply feeding ones kid and that can yes be part of things that “can” happen.
*Such exclusive Breastfeeding (which is quite an involved thing for the Mother- do you realize what is involved??!!) is done for the sake of the Child and their health. *
As to definitions of contraception - there are various documents that may use some differing language or translations to get to the same thing.
K
Kelfa28
Guest
Except when you exclusively breast feed and get your fertility back 5 weeks after giving birth.
How am I supposed to space children if that is apparently God’s design?
Hmmmm?
Just have another baby ever single year?
R
Rico_S
Guest
No. That’s is not what I said. Breastfeeding a specific way with the intention of suppressing ovulation is contraception according to the definitions put forth.
P
phil19034
Guest
Breastfeeding is not contraception because for something to be considered “contraception” it must be foreign to the mother’s body (not including an unborn baby in the womb).
In all honestly… I seriously doubt that any mother breast feeds for the SOLE reason of preventing the restart of her cycle. Is it a factor for some… yes. But not the SOLE reason.
But breastfeeding is hard work. My son is 10 months old and my wife wants to quit breastfeeding badly. But my son loves it and sometimes before bed refuses the bottle and wants my wife’s breast.
Very few (if any) women are going to go through all that work simply to prevent pregnancy.
Mothers breastfeed because they believe it is best thing for their child. Perhaps some using the pregnancy avoidance as “motivation” to keep up the hard work. But I seriously doubt that deep down any mother would breastfeed for the SOLE reason of preventing pregnancy.
God Bless
- Status