Why NFP rather than condoms, sponge, etc.?

[StCsDavid]

StCsDavid;2011155:

The argument really isn’t about natural versus unnatural. It’s about purpose of marital relations and the will of the participants. Remember, contraception wasn’t invented to prevent pregnancy. A 100% fool-proof method already exists. It’s called abstinence. Contraception was invented to allow couples to have sex whenever they wanted with no regard for the procreative purpose of the act.

So would contraception be ok if the church defined its use as appropriate just within marriage?

And abstinence IS 100% foolproof to avert pregancy - but that same foolproof plan against pregnancy does not allow one to fully express their love to their partner. Is the love between two people less important that the procreative aspect of their marriage?

The Church has already stated that contraception is evil. It seems unlikely it would say it’s okay to conduct this evil, especially within a marriage.

The argument presented attempts to de-link the full expression of love and procreative nature of marital relations. To seperate the two is to mechanize one or both of the spouses and turn them into mere objects. It’s not an either or game. Sex is a unitive expression of love and is open to procreation. If one is not open to the creative norm, for whatever reason, then one should abstain.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Mr. Hawkins you appear to put science ahead of faith in order of importance in determining the right or wrong of a particular action

right - that would be Dr Hawkins. How could science determine what is right or wrong? That would be a category confusion.

You completely dismiss the natural law and give the impression that God’s will is a punch line versus an objective reality. That is the popular way in secular Europe and here in the States. Certainty requires the least intellectual exertion or thought. It’s a little too lazy for my taste, but to each his own. I do take offense at your propensity to make sport of faith

I’m not sure where these comments spring from?
Where do I dismiss natural law?
Where do I say God’s will is a punchline?
Where I do venture into certainty?
Where do I make sport of faith???

You seem like a reasonably bright fellow, and I’m disappointed that your scientific citing is terribly lacking and from what I’ve read thus far, simply inaccurate. The rationale that ABC is evil is based upon both faith and science. I suspect a blind spot in your ability to reason this is out exists. One’s lived experience or simply a desire to continue an objectively evil practice often prevents one from a careful examination of the truth.

Please point out any scientific inaccuracies. I would hope anyone with the MRCP could be classified a bit higher than reasonably bright unless the standards have really gone downhill recently!
Could you provide a rationale for saying ABC is evil then?
Basing that argument on science would be I reiterate a category confusion.

 

[BigE]

Actually, the Anglican church did this back in 1930

This resolution “opened the floodgates” to other Christian denominations allowing the use of birth control within marriage, and look where it’s led us.

Where did IT lead us?

Why don’t you ask St. Paul?

Why?.. was St. Paul married where he had first hand knowledge of the unitive aspects of sex?

 

[jack_hawkins]

So let me get this straight, Jack – the information found on the inserts of birth control pills is “at best misleading, at worst an out and out lie”?

well that wouldn’t be getting it straight, that would be making a straw man argument - big difference

And the FDA, filled to the brim with scientists who have “working knowledge of reproductive physiology, pharmacology and the scientific method in general” approved such information to be included with BCPs?
Is that what you’re asserting?

show me the proof that the combined oral contraceptive pill (not low-dose) is an abortifacient
clue: there isn’t any
please try and prove me wrong
then you might understand

 

[BigE]

The Church has already stated that contraception is evil. It seems unlikely it would say it’s okay to conduct this evil, especially within a marriage.

But that’s what I’m getting at - WHY is it evil?

The argument presented attempts to de-link the full expression of love and procreative nature of marital relations. To seperate the two is to mechanize one or both of the spouses and turn them into mere objects. It’s not an either or game. Sex is a unitive expression of love and is open to procreation. If one is not open to the creative norm, for whatever reason, then one should abstain.

How is me expressing my deep love for my wife, in the most intimate of ways, without the procreative process - mechanical? Where in that fullest expression of love for another am I treating her as an object?

 

[wanner47]

well that wouldn’t be getting it straight, that would be making a straw man argument - big difference

Let me put this in simpler terms.

You assert that the information found on the inserts of birth control pills is “at best misleading, at worst an out and out lie”?

Do you believe this assertion to be true? Yes or** no**.

show me the proof that the combined oral contraceptive pill is an abortifacient

Show me proof that it’s not.

The MANUFACTURER of the pills included information in the pills stating that the hormones in the pill work to compromise the lining of the uterus, in order to make the lining inhospitable to implantation in case the primary purpose of the pills fail and conception does occur.

The Food and Drug Administration approved this information to be included with the pills, giving tacit approval to the information contained.

What credentials do you have that make you a more authoritative source than the manufacturer of the birth control pills and the FDA?

 

[wanner47]

Where did IT lead us?

To the widespread and immoral use of birth control outside of marriage, not to mention to the widespread acceptance of abortion.

Why?.. was St. Paul married where he had first hand knowledge of the unitive aspects of sex?

St. Paul was a disciple of JESUS, the CREATOR of sex. He received direct communication from God. I don’t think he had to be married if he was taught about sex by the person who created it.

 

[jack_hawkins]

Let me put this in simpler terms.
You assert that the information found on the inserts of birth control pills is “at best misleading, at worst an out and out lie”?

no I didn’t say that at all did I?

Do you believe this assertion to be true? Yes or** no**.

since I didn’t make that assertion, then the question becomes irrelevant

Show me proof that it’s not

tell me how you prove a negative scientifically (clue: it’s impossible)
however we can infer that the COCP doesn’t work by affecting implantation
the POP is generally accepted to work by affecting implantation - it must be recognised it is impossible to detect that a zygote has not successfully implanted with current technology AFAIK
with the POP, ectopic pregnancy rates are either increased or not decreased (absolute rates)
nearly all studies of the COCP do not show this effect
the “hostile endometrium” theory has not been proven to be a significant part of the action of the COCP (non-low dose), it is speculation (like the modes of action of many other drugs which haven’t been fully elucidated either)

The MANUFACTURER of the pills included information in the pills stating that the hormones in the pill work to compromise the lining of the uterus, in order to make the lining inhospitable to implantation in case the primary purpose of the pills fail and conception does occur.
The Food and Drug Administration approved this information to be included with the pills, giving tacit approval to the information contained.
What credentials do you have that make you a more authoritative source than the manufacturer of the birth control pills and the FDA?

The contents of inserts is regulated as you mention. Do you know how the side-effects profile is produced? By listing every symptom suffered in the Phase I-III studies! So that is actually a poor reflection of the true side-effect profile.
Where’s the proof the pills work in this way?
Simple question. Where’s the proof that non-low dose COCP works as an abortifacient?
Either there is proof and I am wrong, or there isn’t proof and the “pro-life” campaign should concede that telling people the COCP is an abortifacient is at best misleading.Food for thought

 

[wanner47]

no I didn’t say that at all did I?
since I didn’t make that assertion, then the question becomes irrelevant

Yes you did.

You said,

if you go into the “pro-life” argument in depth with a working knowledge of reproductive physiology, pharmacology and the scientific method in general you will realise that their argument is at best misleading, at worst an out and out lie.

That is what you said in response the stating the fact that the manufacturers of the birth control pills state in the package insert that the pill works to change the lining of the uterus so, in the case that conception does occur, the uterus is inhospitable to implantatilon.

tell me hwo you prove a negative

Where’s the proof the pills work in this way?
Simple question. Where’s the proof that non-low dose COCP works as an abortifacient?
Either there is proof and I am wrong, or there isn’t proof and the “pro-life” campaign should concede that telling people the COCP is an abortifacient is at best misleading.

The proof was quoted earlier in this thread, Jack. Here it is again.

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Oral Contraception
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 the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation).Receptor binding studies, as well as studies in animals and humans, have shown that norgestimate and 17-deacetyl norgestimate, the major serum metabolite, combine high progestational activity with minimal intrinsic androgenicity.90-93Norgestimate, in combination with ethinyl estradiol, does not counteract the estrog

How do you prove a negative? Simple. You prove that (a) the pills work so ovulation *never *occurs – essentially, you prove that the birth control pills have a 0% failure rate – and/or (b) you prove that if conception does occur, the pills do nothing to make the lining of the uterus inhospitable and thus do not cause the death of the conceived baby.

 

[BigE]

To the widespread and immoral use of birth control outside of marriage, not to mention to the widespread acceptance of abortion.

So I take it you are against knives too. Since they are often misused to kill people. I think your argument here is quite a stretch.

St. Paul was a disciple of JESUS, the CREATOR of sex. He received direct communication from God. I don’t think he had to be married if he was taught about sex by the person who created it.

St James was a disciple of Jesus too. He thought everybody should have to be circumsized before becoming a Christian. What are your feelings on that?

 

[jack_hawkins]

wanner 47, I am not going to have a silly argument about what I said - it’s there for people to read and if we can’t agree on basics like that, the hope for any higher scientific argument succeeding is essentially NIL.
It’s illogical (and completely misunderstanding the physiology) to say that the way to prove the COCP is not an abortifacient is to prove a zero failure rate. That is a total non sequitur. Explain your logic please?
Since science shows one cannot prove a negative, prove the “hostile endometrium” theory holds true for the COCP(1st gen)
that document you quote does not prove anything

 

[wanner47]

wanner 47, I am not going to have a silly argument about what I said - it’s there for people to read and if we can’t agree on basics like that, the hope for any higher scientific argument succeeding is essentially NIL.

You can’t admit the truth of what you said, so you’re retreating to the lofty stance of, “We can’t agree so let’s not try.” Gotcha.

It’s illogical (and completely misunderstanding the physiology) to say that the way to prove the COCP is not an abortifacient is to prove a zero failure rate. That is a total non sequitur. Explain your logic please?

Here is my logic. IF the pill is NOT an abortifacient, it either (a) inhibits ovulation 100% of the time, or (b) does not make the uterine lining inhospitable to implantation.

If either of these conditions are false, the pill is abotifacient because ovulation, and thus conception, CAN occur, in which case the conceived baby would fail to implant because of the inhospitable uterine lining - aka, an abortion.

Since science shows one cannot prove a negative, prove the “hostile endometrium” theory holds true for the COCP(1st gen) that document you quote does not prove anything

Yes it does. The quoted portion, and the link, is from the package insert of a low-dose birth control pill. The insert states that it makes the uterine lining inhospitable for implantation as a failsafe in case conception occurs.

BigE - the problem being is that contraception is wrong when used exactly as intended by the manufacturers - i.e., to prevent conception/implantation. When a knife is used to commit a crime, it is not being used as intended by the manufacturers.

Can you cite St. James’ authoratative teaching that states everyone MUST be circumcized before becoming Christian?

 

[jack_hawkins]

wanner stop trying to say something I never said
it’s very simple I didn’t say that
it’s not a lofty stance at all
I don’t know what problem you have with comprehending material but the problem is yours not mine
do you wish to discuss the issue at hand or just keep on insisting your “version” is correct? YES/NO?

 

[jack_hawkins]

Here is my logic. IF the pill is NOT an abortifacient, it either (a) inhibits ovulation 100% of the time, or (b) does not make the uterine lining inhospitable to implantation.

RIGHT - which isn’t logical:thumbsup:
so next to lack of reading ability, put lack of logical ability:thumbsup:

BTW the same opinion quoted many times doesn’t equal proof - another scientific concept for you:thumbsup:

as I have stated several times I am talking about non low dose COCP eg 1st generation
so inserts of low dose OCPs irrelevant to my argument

 

[wanner47]

RIGHT - which isn’t logical:thumbsup:
so next to lack of reading ability, put lack of logical ability:thumbsup:

BTW the same opinion quoted many times doesn’t equal proof - another scientific concept for you:thumbsup:

as I have stated several times I am talking about non low dose COCP eg 1st generation
so inserts of low dose OCPs irrelevant to my argument

Disprove my logic, then.

Give me examples of COCP 1st generation pills and I will be more than happy to cite one of their inserts.

 

[jack_hawkins]

how is it logical?
it’s as simple as that
if the pill doesn’t inhibit ovulation 100% of the time, why does it have to be an abortifacient???
that is illogical

 

[wanner47]

how is it logical?
it’s as simple as that
if the pill doesn’t inhibit ovulation 100% of the time, why does it have to be an abortifacient???
that is illogical

The pill is designed to inhibit ovulation. That is its primary purpose.

Now, given that pills have a failure rate, however small, that means that ovulation CAN occur.

IF ovulation occurs, there is a chance that conception might ALSO occur.

If conception occurs, the fertilized egg will try to implant in the uterine lining.

If that lining has been made inhospitable to implantation due to the pill, the fertilized egg cannot implant. Thus, an abortive act has occured. Life has been thwarted by the pill.

If ovulation is inhibited 100% of the time, conception cannot occur since no egg has been released. However, since pills have a failure rate, they are obviously not successful at inhibiting ovulation 100% of the time.

 

[agapewolf]

Jesus didn’t almost, or “halfway” die on the cross. he did it completely. Have GAVE 100% of himself.

Spouses should give 100% to each other. Death to self, to rise as one body.

Sex with contraception is not giving 100%. It is saying “i love you , but not your fertility”

 

[jack_hawkins]

The pill is designed to inhibit ovulation. That is its primary purpose.

Now, given that pills have a failure rate, however small, that means that ovulation CAN occur.

IF ovulation occurs, there is a chance that conception might ALSO occur.

If conception occurs, the fertilized egg will try to implant in the uterine lining.

If that lining has been made inhospitable to implantation due to the pill, the fertilized egg cannot implant. Thus, an abortive act has occured. Life has been thwarted by the pill.

If ovulation is inhibited 100% of the time, conception cannot occur since no egg has been released. However, since pills have a failure rate, they are obviously not successful at inhibiting ovulation 100% of the time.

you have still haven’t explained your statement in a previous post to the effect that if the pill isn’t 100% effective at stopping ovulation, it must be an abortifacient - therefore this post is begging the question

 

[1ke]

Why must the the marriage act be both unitive and procreative at the same time?

Isn’t that in itself a “subjective” determination of what the act should be?

No, it is not a subjective determination of what the act should be. It is **God’s **determination of what the Act should be, which can be known definitively through Scripture and Tradition/Magesterium.

The Sacramental nature of the act is covered in detail in such texts as Theology of the Body (I recommend you get Theology of the Body For Beginners), and church writings such as Casti Connubii, Humanae Vitae, and others.

The act is not merely of the natural order, it is of the supernatural order-- it is a sacramental act of the marriage covenant. Nor is it a *private *act. It is communion with both the spouse *and *God.

Is the opposite a sin too? One spouse does not love the other but still has sex. The procreative act is open, but the unitive is closed?

Marital rape is a grave sin and offense against the unitive element of the marital act. Merely not having “loving feelings” is likely not-- as the act is still done with free will. Therefore, it does have the unitive element present.