Why is NFP okay, but artificial contraceptives are not?

[cmudd]

I agree that the means used to achieve an end may make a moral distinction. The question is why ABC is an immoral means and NFP is a moral means. Obviously they are different and people prefer one to the other. Why is preferring one moral, and the other immoral?

Is it the “sacrifice of abstinence?” If so, why is such a sacrifice required? Is sacrifice required to avail oneself of other choices? Given two alternative approaches to a reach a goal, must the Christian always take the one that involves sacrifice, even if there is no other moral distinction between the two?

TMC,

  I think you may have some things correct here, but others are incorrect.  Contraception is ALWAYS wrong according to the Church.  Family planning, however, can be very good.

If a Catholic is using NFP as a natural form of contraception, he is as guilty of objective sin as he who uses artificial contraception. The Church teaches that we must only avoid pregnancy for grave reasons. Further, the married couple is required to openly and generously accept children into their home. That does not mean that one must have as many children as possible as soon as possible. Rather, we are called to bear children as often as our respective situations allow.

It is called Natural Family Planning, not Natural Birth Control. It may be used by couples to manage the number and/or frequency of their children by using the naturally fertile and infertile periods of a couples cycle. It may not be used for ultimately selfish reasons (buy a better boat, keep a membership to the exclusive club).

God gave us naturally fertile and infertile periods. He also made sex a lot of fun (hence the procreative and unative aspects of the conjugal act)! Neither He, nor the Church says that every time a married couple has intercourse they MUST desire conception. We must be open to the possibility, though.

NFP as contraception is objectively sinnful because it is selfish toward potential children and dishonest to one’s spouse.

God Bless!!!

 

[cmudd]

ABC is not ok because Pope John Paul II said so. The Church gathered a group of people together years ago to examine ABC and see if it was good, or bad. You know, make a study, recommend something.

The study reported that ABC should be allowed. Pope John Paul II chose to ignore their findings. Ultimately, morality is because God said so. There are no arguments that cannot be counter-argued. It is the job of the Bishops, and Pope, to advise us on what they think God would say. Ultimately, if forced into a corner, the Church can use Papal Infallibility to assert its sovereign right to decide what the Catholic Church teaches. My understanding is that the Pope said ABC violated the “Natural Law”. But it does not really matter why he said what he did.

So, the short answer is simply because the Pope said so.

Obviously, he could change his mind in the future.

WOW. That is an oversimplification, at best, and an absolute fabrication, at worst.

First, I think you are talking about Paul VI (read Humane Vitae).

Second, the Church is careful and objective. So, we should applaud the late Holy Father, Paul VI, for asking the advice of other people. Unfortunately, many of them got it wrong.

Thirdly, Neither Paul VI, nor John Paul II, nor any other pope can change Church teaching on this matter. It is defined Catholic Dogma. A pope coul no more OK ABC than it could OK women priests or change its mind on the incarnation or the communion of saints - they are objectively true and unchangable even by God Himself (Who Is Truth).

I think your heart is in the right place here, but your facts, assessments, and assertions are flawed.

No offensse intended!

 

[larry85704]

Ok, I could be wrong about which Pope. Getting old is hard. I did read some of the writings of Pope John Paul II.

Popes can do what they want. If you are aware of the history of the Church you know things change. Like annulments.

God is not dead. He can choose to reveal things not known before whenever He wants to. Are you going to tell Him not to? He can change His mind because of the actions of us. He can and He has. For example-

The Sacrament of Reconciliation was started after a while because people that have been excommunicated wanted back in the Church. The Sacrament of Reconciliation was originally made to allow them a way back in. Now I’ll bet God would always forgive sinners, it just took the Church awhile.

Understand something. The Catholic Church is changing everyday. I would like to think it is because it is getting better. Someday women will be priests, priests will marry (oops, there are married priests in the Roman Catholic Church today, but it is a secret), but the Church will never stop changing.

If the Church wasn’t changing why have Vatican II? Do you remember all the people that left the Church over Vatican II? Priests too? Who was right, you better say the Church.

 

[hamburglar]

I am still having a hard time seeing how NFP can be so great. You are still doing it for the prevention of children.

All this talk about the moral end does not justify the immoral means. What about the immoral ends? It can be said that the idea of preventing children is in itself immoral.

I just am having a hard time seeing how NFP can be justified under most cases. I can see it under a few rare, special circumstances, but for the average couple, it seems like much abuse could happen and it is used out of selfishness.

 

[cmudd]

Ok, I could be wrong about which Pope. Getting old is hard. I did read some of the writings of Pope John Paul II.

Popes can do what they want. If you are aware of the history of the Church you know things change. Like annulments.

God is not dead. He can choose to reveal things not known before whenever He wants to. Are you going to tell Him not to? He can change His mind because of the actions of us. He can and He has. For example-

The Sacrament of Reconciliation was started after a while because people that have been excommunicated wanted back in the Church. The Sacrament of Reconciliation was originally made to allow them a way back in. Now I’ll bet God would always forgive sinners, it just took the Church awhile.

Understand something. The Catholic Church is changing everyday. I would like to think it is because it is getting better. Someday women will be priests, priests will marry (oops, there are married priests in the Roman Catholic Church today, but it is a secret), but the Church will never stop changing.

If the Church wasn’t changing why have Vatican II? Do you remember all the people that left the Church over Vatican II? Priests too? Who was right, you better say the Church.

Larry,

C’mon now… what you are talking about is not the Catholic Church changing, you are talking about Protestantism…

There are a couple of points that I am going to make, even though you can find them throughout this website.

1. There are certain teachings of the Church that are called dogmas. Dogmatic teachings are not changeable. When the Church defines something as dogma, it is akin to saying, “We recognize this as Truth. This teaching is metaphysically true.” The Church does not make it so, by its very nature, it is true and the Church simply officially recognizes it as such.

The pope could no more change dogmatic teaching than he could tell us that the sky is made of jell-o or that black is white and blue is really red.

Nor could God change these things, for He made them to be what they are. For God to suddenly make what is true untrue, would mean that God is now able to violate His own nature; which is, in addition to other things, absolutely rational. God may not be irrational. To argue that God could violate His own nature is not only to say that He is imperfect, but it is akin to the Islamic belief that God (Allah) is super-rational or prater-rational (not sure about the verbiage there).

1. I am not sure of your sources, but the sacrament of Reconciliation was instituted by Christ, Himself, “Go Forth and forgive men’s sins, etc…” You might want to check New Advent’s website on the seven sacraments. While its implementation has changed hear and there, it has existed from the beginning of the Church.
2. The Church, as the stainless Bride of Christ, doesn’t change. Its various aspects become clearer over time and more and more of Her truths are revealed. The things that change are traditions, practices, disciplines, etc… The Church is constant; we simply cannot see all of Her at every moment in history.
3. Women cannot become priests. That is defined Catholic dogma. It will not and cannot ever happen. As JPII said (paraphrasing), the Church does not have the authority to confer priestly ordination on women. Christ, Himself ordained only men and from the earliest foundations of Judaism, it was men who entered the ministry. …not up for discussion.
4. The Church has always had married clergy and will continue to have married clergy. That is a discipline that has changed and could change in the future. It is no secret.
5. Vatican II changed some disciplines and some practices (not so many as we have seen since the council). It did not attempt to change any dogmas or theologies. It was a pastoral council. It did not address Church teachings.
6. No pope can say that contraception is acceptable.

I’m not trying to be argumentative in this. This is what the Church teaches. The more time I spend on this site, the more I see well intentioned people make the most incorrect statements as though they are the Pope, Himself. It is, at times, discouraging. If you are as sincere about your faith as you seem, please reflect on these points and others in these many threads. We must learn to humbly obey the Church in what She teaches, even if we don’t understand or agree with Her. We must be loyal to the one true Church established by Christ: free from error, and led by his vicar, the pope in Rome.

 

[cmudd]

I am still having a hard time seeing how NFP can be so great. You are still doing it for the prevention of children.

All this talk about the moral end does not justify the immoral means. What about the immoral ends? It can be said that the idea of preventing children is in itself immoral.

I just am having a hard time seeing how NFP can be justified under most cases. I can see it under a few rare, special circumstances, but for the average couple, it seems like much abuse could happen and it is used out of selfishness.

Hamburglar,

First of all, great name! Secondly, I know exactly what you are writing about. It took me a long time to understand the Church’s teaching on NFP. I think I can actually remember the moment when it just opened up to me. No miracle or anything, but it simply became clear. One important point I should make is that I never argued with Church teaching, I simply sought to understand it knowing that God would not let His Church go astray.

Now, let me see if I can help you out with this…

The Church does not and has never taught that each act of sexual intercourse between a husband and wife should have as its ultimate and only goal, the conception of a new baby. As well as procreative (open to the transmission of new life), sex is unitive (bringing the two together intimately to express their mutual love). So, another purpose for sex is to bring a couple closer together. It would be foolish to think that every time a couple is intimate, they are trying to breed. That is one of the many things that separate us from the animals.

However, we must assent to the fact that the sexual act must be open to the possible transmission of life and we must welcome that possibility with generosity. Thus, we cannot, as an act of our own will, put up a barrier (ABC) that frustrates that essential procreative aspect of the sexual act (open to the transmission of life).

You might now be thinking, “Well, aren’t we frustrating God’s intentions by having sex when we know we cannot get pregnant?” No. It was God who designed the act to be unitive and procreative and it was God who designed us to have periods of infertility. So, how can we be violating God’s law by having unitive sex during those times of infertility? Again, remember that the Church does not say that we must desire children with each act of intercourse.

That being said, if a couple uses NFP as a natural form of Birth Control, they are still committing grave sin. The principle of the Church’s understanding of NFP is that it is FAMILY PLANNING, not contraception. NFP is to be used to regulate the number and frequency of children in accordance with the dictates of one’s own properly-formed conscience and with the needs of one’s family.

We are called to welcome children with generosity (it is part of the wedding vows). For grave reasons, we may limit or delay children (war, famine, severe financial or health issues, etc…). Conversely, we must be open to having as many children as our situation allows (financial, health, age, stamina situation).

I can speak from personal experience on this next point. If a couple is willing to take the time and the energy to learn NFP, then have the patience to use it properly, they are most often doing it with the right intentions in mind. I’m not saying everyone who does it is using it with the right intentions, but I am willing to bet that most are.

Moreover, total prevention of children is immoral. Delaying, limiting, or spacing them for grave reasons is very moral, indeed.

Please let me know if this was helpful. I know I can be long-winded, but you asked a very honest and astute question and I felt it needed an equal response.

 

[1ke]

I am still having a hard time seeing how NFP can be so great. You are still doing it for the prevention of children.

All this talk about the moral end does not justify the immoral means. What about the immoral ends? It can be said that the idea of preventing children is in itself immoral.

The Church does not teach that avoiding children is instrinsically evil. That would mean it is always wrong.

The Church teaches that there can be just reasons to postpone or avoid having children for a time or indefinitely.

You are correct that there can also be immoral reasons for avoiding children.

All of the information I have given you applies only to the times when there are just reasons. Of course you cannot apply moral means to an immoral end.

I just am having a hard time seeing how NFP can be justified under most cases. I can see it under a few rare, special circumstances, but for the average couple, it seems like much abuse could happen and it is used out of selfishness.

That is not your call to make. The Catechism gives guidance here. The reasons must be just and must conform to objective moral criteria.

Because you do not know everyone’s personal situation you should refrain from making judgments on individual situations. A couple that looks perfectly happy and “well off” could have a serious financial circumstance, health condition, psychological condition, or other serious issue of which you are unaware.

Yes, it can be abused just like anything else. Alcohol is a good example of this-- the Church does not teach drinking alcohol is wrong, intrinsically. Some people do drink to excess and abuse alcohol-- and for those people drinking alcohol is wrong. But, not for everyone.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I am still having a hard time seeing how NFP can be so great. You are still doing it for the prevention of children.

All this talk about the moral end does not justify the immoral means. What about the immoral ends? It can be said that the idea of preventing children is in itself immoral.

I just am having a hard time seeing how NFP can be justified under most cases. I can see it under a few rare, special circumstances, but for the average couple, it seems like much abuse could happen and it is used out of selfishness.

The Church and the Bible teach very clearly that children are blessings. Since you can understand using NFP for a few rare cases, where couples may avoid more children for unselfish reasons, then you are very close to understanding Church teachings on NFP.

CCC 2368 states “…it is their duty to make cetain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood…” Yes, you recognize as does the Church that NFP can be used with selfishness, but 1) the Church teachings forbid selfish use of NFP 2) the abstainance part required for effective NFP helps people to re-evalutate their motives and may eventually eliminate long term use when the motives are purely selfish.

You recognize that there may be unselfish reasons to avoid pregnancy in marriage, and so does the Church. The Church has not defined clearly what those “special circumstances” are where married couples may intentionally avoid pregnancy. Church documents use phrases like “for just reasons”, and couples are left to discern in prayer if their reasons are just. Somewhere I read that a good sign that the couple uses NFP justly is if the couple is sad that they need to avoid pregnancy. True love desires to be fruitful.

 

[Brendan]

I agree that the means used to achieve an end may make a moral distinction. The question is why ABC is an immoral means and NFP is a moral means. Obviously they are different and people prefer one to the other. Why is preferring one moral, and the other immoral?

ABC is an immoral means because it violates the nature of the marital act.

God created the marital act to do certain things at certain times. God did a great job of that creation and we can’t ‘improve’ upon it.

ABC seeks to destroy what God created in the marital act, NFP uses what God created in the Marital Act.

ABC treats fertilty like a disease, something to be treated or gotten rid of. NFP uses fertilty exactly as God created it.

 

[Brendan]

The Sacrament of Reconciliation was started after a while because people that have been excommunicated wanted back in the Church. The Sacrament of Reconciliation was originally made to allow them a way back in. Now I’ll bet God would always forgive sinners, it just took the Church awhile.

Huh?

The Sacrament of Reconcilliation started in John 20:19-23. It’s been there since then.

 

[fix]

Ok, I could be wrong about which Pope. Getting old is hard. I did read some of the writings of Pope John Paul II.

Popes can do what they want. If you are aware of the history of the Church you know things change. Like annulments.

God is not dead. He can choose to reveal things not known before whenever He wants to. Are you going to tell Him not to? He can change His mind because of the actions of us. He can and He has. For example-

The Sacrament of Reconciliation was started after a while because people that have been excommunicated wanted back in the Church. The Sacrament of Reconciliation was originally made to allow them a way back in. Now I’ll bet God would always forgive sinners, it just took the Church awhile.

Understand something. The Catholic Church is changing everyday. I would like to think it is because it is getting better. Someday women will be priests, priests will marry (oops, there are married priests in the Roman Catholic Church today, but it is a secret), but the Church will never stop changing.

If the Church wasn’t changing why have Vatican II? Do you remember all the people that left the Church over Vatican II? Priests too? Who was right, you better say the Church.

So, why accept what the Church teaches now if She will change? The point is the Church is not the inventer of moral truth. She is the custodian. The natural moral law does not change.

 

[TMC]

So, we agree that not all means of achieving an end are moral.

Yes, the question is why is NFP moral and ABC immoral.

To stay with the analogy, contraception affirmatively injures the marital act by taking what is God’s. God designed sexual intercourse to be BOTH unitive and procreative. You cannot engage in properly ordered sexual intercourse if you separate one from the other or pursue one at the expense of the other.

OK, I don’t necessarily agree to understand how contraception takes what is God’s, but lets assume for the moment that this is true and see where it takes us.

OK, this is entirely inconsistent with what you just said. If birth control takes what is God’s how can just reasons matter? If just reasons make it OK, why can’t there be just reasons to use so-called ABC?

How does NFP honor the procreative purpose? The very point is to avoid procreating. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that a sexual practice which is carefully designed to avoid conception and procreation is open to procreation and not contraceptive.

You can continue to insist that contraception and birth control or not the same thing, but they are. Contraception means avoiding conception. The only moral way to “control” birth is to avoid conception - surely we agree on that? So you can avoid conception by abstinence, or by doing something to ensure that sex does not result in conception. But at that point there is a supposed division based on the means used to avoid conception. But that is an entirely artificial division. I have yet to hear why one is moral and one is not.

It’s number 6 on the big list of 10.

I know that is the doctrine, but quite a broad definition of adultery, don’t you think?

I suggest you read humanae vitae, which expounds on this very issue.

I have, and I don’t find a reasonable, rational explanation in there.

[/QUOTE]

 

[TMC]

ABC is an immoral means because it violates the nature of the marital act.

I have yet to hear how this is so, and if it is so why it is not also true for NFP.

God created the marital act to do certain things at certain times. God did a great job of that creation and we can’t ‘improve’ upon it.

What are we Christian Scientists, or Amish? In all other aspects of life Catholics embrace advancements in medicine and other “improvements.” If we reject contraception it must be because there is something objectively immoral about it or we wouldn’t be wearing eyeglasses, either.

ABC seeks to destroy what God created in the marital act, NFP uses what God created in the Marital Act.

ABC treats fertilty like a disease, something to be treated or gotten rid of. NFP uses fertilty exactly as God created it.

How does NFP use fertility? NFP is a deliberate, carefully planned system to avoid fertility. The birth control pill uses God’s design of the female reproductive system to ensure that no egg is in position to be fertilized. So does NFP. The fact that one uses a chemical and the other a thermometer makes no difference. If every sex act is required to be open to procreation, then why aren’t Catholics required to abstain except when the woman is fertile? Why is it OK to only have sex when she is not?

 

[Good_Daughter]

I have been asked why NFP is okay, but artificial contraception is not. They say that the CCC says that “every action which, … render procreation impossible” and since condoms do not render procreation IMPOSSIBLE, they don’t fit under this.

Procreation is not necessarily the same as reproduction.

Condoms always render procreation impossible but they don’t always stop reproduction. You can’t use a condom, or any other form of artificial contraceptive, and retain the procreative aspect of sex. Only NFP, used correctly, allows the sexual act to remain procreative while seeking to avoid its reproductive element.

A couple wishing to have sex while trying to avoid pregnancy has options. If they choose artificial contraception, working against the design of their own bodies, they assign infertility to a given act of intercourse. If they choose NFP, working with the design of their bodies, they use the time that nature has assigned infertility to a given act of intercourse. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve always seen a big difference in these two approaches.

 

[TMC]

Procreation is not necessarily the same as reproduction.
Condoms always render procreation impossible but they don’t always stop reproduction. You can’t use a condom, or any other form of artificial contraceptive, and retain the procreative aspect of sex. Only NFP, used correctly, allows the sexual act to remain procreative while seeking to avoid its reproductive element.

A couple wishing to have sex while trying to avoid pregnancy has options. If they choose artificial contraception, working against the design of their own bodies, they assign infertility to a given act of intercourse. If they choose NFP, working with the design of their bodies, they use the time that nature has assigned infertility to a given act of intercourse. Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve always seen a big difference in these two approaches.

Now you are just changing the meaning of words to make your point. You can prove anything that way. Procreation is nothing but reproduction. If it is not, what is the difference?

So-called artificial birth control does not work against the body’s design, or at least no more so than shoes do. It uses the bodies design to achieve the result that person wants. This is what NFP does. There is nothing natural about having sex only when the woman cannot conceive. Is there any creature in nature that does this? There is nothing natural about measuring mucus and taking temperatures and all the rest.

NFP is a way to have sex while ensuring, as best the method can achieve, that no child is conceived. Family of the Americas claims that their method is 98-99% effective - significantly more effective than spermicide, the diaphram, or a condom and even slightly more effective than the pill. How is a birth control method that gives a 99% chance that you can have sex without risk of pregnancy open to procreation?

 

[fix]

How does NFP use fertility? NFP is a deliberate, carefully planned system to avoid fertility.

It avoids conception. That is licit for good reasons.

The birth control pill uses God’s design of the female reproductive system to ensure that no egg is in position to be fertilized.

Yes, it alters the act.

So does NFP.

The act of intercourse in unaltered with NFP.

The fact that one uses a chemical and the other a thermometer makes no difference.

It is a significant moral difference. The themometer is part of gathering information, it does not change the meaning of the act. The chemical changes the act.

If every sex act is required to be open to procreation, then why aren’t Catholics required to abstain except when the woman is fertile? Why is it OK to only have sex when she is not?

Because the use of the term open to procreation is not equal to the term conception likely to happen.

 

[gardenswithkids]

ABC is an immoral means because it violates the nature of the marital act.

Yes, the part you wrote that I highlighted is precisely why the Church reject contraception–because there is something objectively immoral about it. Desiring to avoid pregnancy is not objectively immoral because there may be a very good reason for avoiding pregnancy, (such as another pregancy posing life threatening risk to both mother and child, etc.)

Contraceptiong differs from NFP because it objectively changes the sexual act (whether they intend to change it or not.) Cycles of fertililty and infertility are natural to healthy women’s bodies, while healthy men are naturally fertile at all times. Placing latex over one’s privates changes the act. Adding chemical spermacides changes the act. Adding artificial hormones into a healthy woman’s body changes the woman and therefor the sexual act. Cutting falopian tubes or vas deferons changes the human body, and therefore it changes the sexual act. Fertility is a normal, healthy part of life and infertility is part of the fertility cycle, but it is abnormal to be infertile at all times.

Compare that to glasses. People use glasses to correct their vission. It would be *abnormal *if someone with perfect vission asked for glasses or lazer surgery for the purpose of artificially distorting their vission. In the same way, it is abnormal if someone who is healthy and fertile renders their sexual acts artificially infertile at all times.

I find analogies helpful, so I’ll stick with your comparrison to glasses. NFP doesn’t render the act infertile–because when used for avoiding pregnancy, NFP requires the couple NOT to act. That might compare to someone choosing not to wear corrective lenses some days (rather than intentionally distorting their healthy vission.) Contact lense wearers may develop eye infections and forego wearing their contacts; sometimes couples have just reasons for avoiding relations during a woman’s fertile times.

 

[TMC]

It avoids conception. That is licit for good reasons.
Yes, it alters the act.

The act of intercourse in unaltered with NFP.

It is a significant moral difference. The themometer is part of gathering information, it does not change the meaning of the act. The chemical changes the act.

Because the use of the term open to procreation is not equal to the term conception likely to happen.

I guess I should quit because I can see I am not getting anywhere. I did not imagine I would change anyone’s mind, and am not trying to. I was hoping for a discussion that could present some rational reasons I could at least think about. Asserting that a chemical in the woman’s blood stream “alters the act” without explaining how or why does not mean anything. Especially when the complex mechanisms of NFP are asserted to not change the act. To say that conception likely to happen is not the same as open to procreation - frankly that’s just nonsensical given that the person supposedly “open to procreation” is responsible for the fact that conception is not likely to happen.

If sex MUST be open to procreation then it cannot be undertaken knowing full well that there is a 99% liklihood that procreation will not result, especially as it is undoubtedly the fervent hope of the participants that it will not result.

 

[Good_Daughter]

Now you are just changing the meaning of words to make your point. You can prove anything that way. Procreation is nothing but reproduction. If it is not, what is the difference?

So-called artificial birth control does not work against the body’s design, or at least no more so than shoes do. It uses the bodies design to achieve the result that person wants. This is what NFP does. There is nothing natural about having sex only when the woman cannot conceive. Is there any creature in nature that does this? There is nothing natural about measuring mucus and taking temperatures and all the rest.

NFP is a way to have sex while ensuring, as best the method can achieve, that no child is conceived. Family of the Americas claims that their method is 98-99% effective - significantly more effective than spermicide, the diaphram, or a condom and even slightly more effective than the pill. How is a birth control method that gives a 99% chance that you can have sex without risk of pregnancy open to procreation?

A procreative act is one that favours creation. In other words, nothing has been done to stop or inhibit creation in that act. A reproductive act brings forth something new. A pregnant woman who engages in sex with her husband does so with the unitive and procreative aspects of the act in place. What she is incapable of though, is reproductive sex.

Contraception (artificial or natural) works directly against the design of the human body. Name a type of contraception that doesn’t medicate a healthy body, require surgery on a healthy body, kill healthy, useful human cells or require the genital wearing of latex. Shoes protect our feet from harsh surfaces, the elements, etc. Contraception protects us from nothing but fertility, only beneficial if you see fertility as a type of harm, which I don’t.

Sex between a healthy man and woman is always natural, regardless of the woman’s degree of fertility. Yes, animals mate specifically when fertile, but some also eat their young, naturally.

The “natural” in NFP refers to the natural signs given by the female body to indicate fertility or infertility. These signs may be observed and “unnaturally” recorded for analysis.

 

[Good_Daughter]

I guess I should quit because I can see I am not getting anywhere. I did not imagine I would change anyone’s mind, and am not trying to. I was hoping for a discussion that could present some rational reasons I could at least think about. Asserting that a chemical in the woman’s blood stream “alters the act” without explaining how or why does not mean anything. Especially when the complex mechanisms of NFP are asserted to not change the act. To say that conception likely to happen is not the same as open to procreation - frankly that’s just nonsensical given that the person supposedly “open to procreation” is responsible for the fact that conception is not likely to happen.

If sex MUST be open to procreation then it cannot be undertaken knowing full well that there is a 99% liklihood that procreation will not result, especially as it is undoubtedly the fervent hope of the participants that it will not result.

I hope you don’t quit. I enjoy a civilized discussion with someone whose viewpoint is different from my own.

I can’t see how the birth control pill “alters the act” of sex either. Perhaps someone could explain.