why is NFP allowed if all contraception is wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phoenix1950
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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).
That was Davebj’s contention, but 1ke said that “artificial” and “natural” is not a consideration. She then shared her definition in which any action taken prior, during or after sex seeking to prevent the egg and the sperm meeting is contraception…which is intrinsically evil. Breastfeeding in a specific way in order to prevent ovulation exactly fits that definition.
 
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
Women don’t do it just to avoid pregnancy. They might work harder and take it to the next level and ecologically breast feed a child.

I did with my middle and made a genuine effort.

It never worked and I got my cycles back way, way sooner then anyone would have expected. 🤷

Personally, I think that anyone who tries to advocate breastfeeding as an effective form of child spacing, and advertise it as such, is out of their minds and clearly does not have the mother’s best interest in mind.

It should never be used as an effective method to space children because it may not work and you won’t know it doesn’t work until it’s too late and you find out you’re pregnant at 5 weeks PP.

It’s not a form of contraception nor is it a recommended way to space children. Any sane OB-GYN would say so.
 
That was Davebj’s contention, but 1ke said that “artificial” and “natural” is not a consideration. She then shared her definition in which any action taken prior, during or after sex seeking to prevent the egg and the sperm meeting is contraception…which is intrinsically evil. Breastfeeding in a specific way in order to prevent ovulation exactly fits that definition.
So breastfeeding can be done with the so-called “contraceptive mentality”? :banghead:

Oh man, I’m out.
 
I’m pretty sure everyone is missing the point…but that’s ok. Bang away!!
So…the point is there is no way anyone can space a child without contraceptive mentality?

Or am I missing the point too?
 
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?
I did not say that was Gods design in toto.

But actually it can be much longer than that…even up to a year from what I read.

The Church is very clear - if one has serious reasons to avoid another birth - one an use NFP (periodic continence) and if one is breastfeeding - one would take that into the mix - depending on what approach to NFP one follows one would look to additional rules.

And if one is so avoiding - in terms of EB one needs to be aware of the NFP aspects anyway for ones fertility may return sooner than one expects.
 
Women don’t do it just to avoid pregnancy. They might work harder and take it to the next level and ecologically breast feed a child.

I did with my middle and made a genuine effort.

It never worked and I got my cycles back way, way sooner then anyone would have expected. 🤷

Personally, I think that anyone who tries to advocate breastfeeding as an effective form of child spacing, and advertise it as such, is out of their minds and clearly does not have the mother’s best interest in mind.

It should never be used as an effective method to space children because it may not work and you won’t know it doesn’t work until it’s too late and you find out you’re pregnant at 5 weeks PP.

It’s not a form of contraception nor is it a recommended way to space children. Any sane OB-GYN would say so.
I agree 100%
 
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.
No it is not.

One is not doing something to hinder procreation one is feeding ones child for the benefit of the child.

Do you have any idea of what is involved in EB? What it involves? I remember my wife’s adventures. One chooses to do so for the sake of ones kids…for their health etc. The other comes as part of it sure -that is part of the way a wife’s body often works. Tis the normal effect that can happen…one is not doing something to her body to hinder conception.

It is not contra -ception, it is* breakfast*, and second breakfast, and a snack, and dinner, and another snack, and another snack, and another snack, and supper, and desert, and another snack, and another snack, and another snack, and midnight snack and another snack, and another snack, and an early breakfast…and so on…
 
So…the point is there is no way anyone can space a child without contraceptive mentality?
Ha. No of course not.

My point is that given the definition of contraception as offered in this thread, breastfeeding in a very specific way to delay ovulation and to avoid pregnancy must necessarily be contraception. Again…according to the definition offered by 1ke and subsequently by Bookcat.

Perhaps there are other definitions that the church offers of what is contraception…of course that would appear to be problematic from another perspective.

.
 
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.
No it is not.

One is not doing something to hinder procreation one is feeding ones child for the benefit of the child.

Do you have any idea of what is involved in EB? What it involves? I remember my wife’s adventures. One chooses to do so for the sake of ones kids…for their health etc. The other comes as part of it sure -that is part of the way a wife’s body often works. Tis the normal effect that can happen…one is not doing something to her body to hinder conception.

It is not contra -ception, it is* breakfast*, and second breakfast, and a snack, and dinner, and another snack, and another snack, and another snack, and supper, and desert, and another snack, and another snack, and another snack, and midnight snack and another snack, and another snack, and an early breakfast…and so on…
 
Ha. No of course not.

My point is that given the definition of contraception as offered in this thread, breastfeeding in a very specific way to delay ovulation and to avoid pregnancy must necessarily be contraception. Again…according to the definition offered by 1ke and subsequently by Bookcat.

Perhaps there are other definitions that the church offers of what is contraception…of course that would appear to be problematic from another perspective.

.
No… their definitions take for granted the fact that contraception requires a foreign body/object/thing/act/etc to delay/prevent ovulation and/or prevent/block fertilization.

Breastfeeding does NOT introduce anything foreign into the mother’s blood stream to delay ovulation or prevent fertilization. Nor does it introduce a foreign object or act which blocks fertilization.
 
So, breastfeeding exclusively in order to prevent the return of fertility (preventing ovulation) would then be considered contraception and by definition, intrinsically evil?
Breastfeeding is not contraception. (Nor is the definition I gave “my” definition, it comes from Humanae Vitae).

There are three fonts of morality. Intention could be problematic in the case you describe, but not the object or action itself. Breastfeeding is a moral good, it is actually proper functioning of the mother’s body. The body naturally supresses fertility. As has already been stated, western women adopt a number of practices that accelerate natural fertility return. Breastfeeding is designed to delay return of fertility.

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
  • the object chosen;
  • the end in view or the intention;
  • the circumstances of the action.
The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
 
My point is that given the definition of contraception as offered in this thread, breastfeeding in a very specific way to delay ovulation and to avoid pregnancy must necessarily be contraception.
Not at all.

Breastfeeding is food for a baby, designed by God. It has the secondary effect of (sometimes) delaying the return of fertility.
 
NFP is just information.

It only tells you when your ovulating. It’s not a deliberate act to prevent pregnancy. A condom is a deliberate act to avoid pregnancy that thwarts God’s design.

NFP can be used to avoid pregnancy or achieve pregnancy. If you want to get pregnant you figure out when you are ovulating and have sex on those days. If you don’t want to get pregnant you figure out when you are ovulating and avoid those days.

You are working with God’s design and not against it.
👍
 
My understanding is that NFP can be used in the exact same way condoms or any other artificial methods are used. If the name of the game is to avoid pregnancy at all costs then NFP isnt any more rightous than hormonal birth control. It’s about one having an openness to life. But if one needs to postpone that a little, NFP can be used. But there is a difference between still being open to life, vs not at all end of discussion.

I speak from experiance in the past. Trust me it’s weird when NFP Is used but one of the two isn’t open to life in the slightest. Sexually numb to you during fertile days then all of the sudden they are all over you once it’s “safe”. Kind of insulting and a crummy feeling
 
My understanding is that NFP can be used in the exact same way condoms or any other artificial methods are used.
Your understanding is not correct.
If the name of the game is to avoid pregnancy at all costs then NFP isnt any more rightous than hormonal birth control. It’s about one having an openness to life. But if one needs to postpone that a little, NFP can be used. But there is a difference between still being open to life, vs not at all end of discussion.
Church teaching is that each act of intercourse be per se ordered to unity and procreation. The vague term “open to life” is not Church teaching.
I speak from experiance in the past. Trust me it’s weird when NFP Is used but one of the two isn’t open to life in the slightest. Sexually numb to you during fertile days then all of the sudden they are all over you once it’s “safe”. Kind of insulting and a crummy feeling
I am sorry you had that experience.
 
Your understanding is not correct.

Church teaching is that each act of intercourse be per se ordered to unity and procreation. The vague term “open to life” is not Church teaching.

I am sorry you had that experience.
I have read multiple articles including topics such as annulment in which its stated that YES NFP can be used in such a manner. One can even get an annulment if all they ever did was use NFP from the start to where some tribunals would consider the marriage never really consummated
 
One can even get an annulment if all they ever did was use NFP from the start to where some tribunals would consider the marriage never really consummated
I don’t know what kind of articles you are reading, because this is patently false on several counts.
  1. Marriages are valid at the exchange of consent, not at consummation.
  2. If one has intercourse, the marriage is consummated.
  3. Lack of consummation is not grounds for a decree of nullity.
  4. The grounds for nullity are very specific and “some tribunals” cannot consider a marriage consummated while “other tribunals” consider it not consummated. It is or it isn’t. And, if you had sex, it is consummated. NFP or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top