contraception

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Mar 22 2005, 12:01 PM'] Contraceptives are a very good thing. Sex for pleasure is not wrong at all. If you want to make love with your significant other and still not want to have to worry about getting pregnant than its the way to go. [/quote]
So you think pouring chemicals into your body for 20-30 years is a good thing?
Covering parts of your body with plastic to touch your wife is a good thing?

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Mar 23 2005, 07:24 AM'] So you think pouring chemicals into your body for 20-30 years is a good thing?
Covering parts of your body with plastic to touch your wife is a good thing? [/quote]
We take chemicals in all the time. You have probably have had enough perservative to fill a pool over your life span. You ever take medicine before? Tylenol or anything for your headache? The fact is, we take all sorts of chemicals. Unless your are a devoutly wholistic, you take chemicals all the time. Im not one who really likes taking pills and having a bunch of chemicals in me. But I dont see any reason why someone should not. Personally I dont like anything plastic on me, but if someone is going to have casual sex I hope they do. I rather them do that, than to have yet another child in an orphanage.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I voted #1 because, as many have already established, NFP is not a contraceptive.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 22 2005, 11:09 AM'] To that I would only reply, why do you feel that giving life to a new thing restrains you from giving yourself freely? I can understand not being able to financially support the child and what not, but God always supports those in need in the way that they need it. Ok, granted one has to have faith to begin with. That seems to be where we differ, on our views of the sacredness of life. Some people view it as a consequence of sex and would rather not support life that they do not have to. Some view it as a sacred gift the comes from the marital act. It all comes down to how much you value life that is not your own. Or so I think.

As I said, a view held by some. I can understand why you think it holds you back, you think that supporting life that may come from your actions a possible burden? I hope I am not overstating your stance. [/quote]
As I said, I am childfree. I feel that I am emotionally and mentally unable to raise children. I know that I am financially unable to raise children. That doesn't even touch on my morbid fear of pregnancy and childbirth (after seeing others pregnant and the damage done to their bodies). So, yes, the knowledge that I might get pregnant is a burden that keeps me from giving freely. It has nothing to do with the value I put on others' lives. If I simply didn't care about other lives I wouldn't use contraceptives at all; I would simply have an abortion. The point is that I [i]do[/i] care enough about myself and others to try not to get pregnant. Since I've also found myself to be unable to remember to take a pill every day, I am unwilling to try anything more involved than that -- namely NFP.

For those who say that NFP is not contraceptive I have to argue that you are misconstruing the meaning of that word. Even total abstinance is contraceptive. I know that NFP can be used to get pregnant, but that isn't what we're talking about in this situation, so NFP [i]is[/i] contraceptive.

[argent_paladin]

Contraception in marriage destroys the idea of marriage and leads to gay marriage, adultery, divorce, etc.

If it is ok to engage in sexual activity soley for pleasure and not for children or unity, then what if "feeling isn't there anymore" (i.e. not pleasurable)? Then why not divorce if the reason for getting married (pleasurable sex) is no longer present? And that is exactly what is happening. Marriage is for as long as the sex is good. No longer.

Also, if others get the same pleasure from sex, then why can't they marry? If gay people get the same pleasure from sex then why can't they marry? Why does it matter that they can't procreate? If marriage can just be about pleasurable sex, then why not gay marriage?

And finally, if we say that sexual abstinence is impossible for most people (the assumption of contraceptive proponents) then why would we get upset that a spouse has an affair? He can't help himself, right? If he can't controll his sexual urges before marriage, or during marriage, then how can he outside of marriage? We should stop treating people (mainly men) like infants, who cannot control themselves and hold them to a certain standard.

Oh, and these aren't novel observations. Pope Paul VI predicted an explosion in sexual infidelity, divorce and even possibly gay marriage as a result of the widespread acceptance of contraception because it destroys the natural unity of marriage, sex, love and children. The rhyme had it right: first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage. Today one can have marriage without children, love without marriage, sex without love or marriage or children, etc. It is pick and choose. Marriage now depends on love, and love is just a feeling. So, marriage is only as solid as a feeling. But after the feelings disappear and the marriage crumbles, the children remain, in broken homes and unloved. That is the legacy of contraception.


To say that at every moment I am not having sex that results in pregnacy I am contracepting is ludicrous. So, is a pregnant woman or a woman giving birth contracepting?

Pleasure is a side-effect of sex, not the main purpose. It is like food. Just as eating a fine meal and vomiting it up is wrong because one wants the pleasure without consequences, so is having contracepted sex. There is nothing wrong, and much right about having a tasty meal. There is also nothing wrong, and much right with having sex.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 23 2005, 11:53 AM'] As I said, I am childfree. I feel that I am emotionally and mentally unable to raise children. I know that I am financially unable to raise children. That doesn't even touch on my morbid fear of pregnancy and childbirth (after seeing others pregnant and the damage done to their bodies). So, yes, the knowledge that I might get pregnant is a burden that keeps me from giving freely. It has nothing to do with the value I put on others' lives. If I simply didn't care about other lives I wouldn't use contraceptives at all; I would simply have an abortion. The point is that I [i]do[/i] care enough about myself and others to try not to get pregnant. Since I've also found myself to be unable to remember to take a pill every day, I am unwilling to try anything more involved than that -- namely NFP.

For those who say that NFP is not contraceptive I have to argue that you are misconstruing the meaning of that word. Even total abstinance is contraceptive. I know that NFP can be used to get pregnant, but that isn't what we're talking about in this situation, so NFP [i]is[/i] contraceptive. [/quote]
I would just like to start by saying that I respect the choice that you make concerning your ablility and responsibility to childrearing. It takes a very big person to be able to recongize one's limits and accept them. For this I commend you.

I do not however agree with your means.

I would just ask that you take a step back and view the consequences that contraceptives have had on our society. I mean really look at what removing the creation of life from the act of sex has done to this country and others... It has not allowed people to give more freely of themselves. All that it has done is enslave more people to the act of commiting sexual sins because now the consequences are not as noticible or visible. They are still there, but only compounded by condems and then swept underneath the rug comfortably so they may continue the way that they are headed without having to acknowledge the harm it has done...

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Mar 23 2005, 01:56 PM'] Contraception in marriage destroys the idea of marriage and leads to gay marriage, adultery, divorce, etc. [/quote]
No, no it doesn't.

[quote]If it is ok to engage in sexual activity soley for pleasure and not for children or unity, then what if "feeling isn't there anymore" (i.e. not pleasurable)? Then why not divorce if the reason for getting married (pleasurable sex) is no longer present? And that is exactly what is happening. Marriage is for as long as the sex is good. No longer. [/quote]

Ah, I see, you're equating sex with marriage. If anyone really got married to have sex, I feel very, very sorry for that person. Perhaps you should re-think your ideas on marriage.

[quote]Also, if others get the same pleasure from sex, then why can't they marry? If gay people get the same pleasure from sex then why can't they marry? Why does it matter that they can't procreate? If marriage can just be about pleasurable sex, then why not gay marriage?[/quote]

See above.

[quote]And finally, if we say that sexual abstinence is impossible for most people (the assumption of contraceptive proponents) then why would we get upset that a spouse has an affair?[/quote]

1) No, that's not the assumption of contraceptive proponents. Know thy enemy.
2) The reason to be upset over an affair is that a spouse broke the contract formed when they got married. The reason to be upset over an affair is because a spouse has lied.

[quote]He can't help himself, right?[/quote]

OYOS. Those who argue that they can't help themselves are either lying or need psychotherapy for their compulsion issues.

[quote]If he can't controll his sexual urges before marriage, or during marriage, then how can he outside of marriage? We should stop treating people (mainly men) like infants, who cannot control themselves and hold them to a certain standard. [/quote]

I agree. However, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[quote]Oh, and these aren't novel observations. Pope Paul VI predicted an explosion in sexual infidelity, divorce and even possibly gay marriage as a result of the widespread acceptance of contraception because it destroys the natural unity of marriage, sex, love and children. The rhyme had it right: first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes the baby in the baby carriage. Today one can have marriage without children, love without marriage, sex without love or marriage or children, etc. It is pick and choose. Marriage now depends on love, and love is just a feeling. So, marriage is only as solid as a feeling. But after the feelings disappear and the marriage crumbles, the children remain, in broken homes and unloved.[/quote]

That's why marriage should be based on something more solid than just love. IMO love is the worst reason to get married.

[quote]That is the legacy of contraception. [/quote]

Actually, that has nothing to do with contraception. It has more to do with economics. People no longer feel that they must stay in unhappy relationships to survive.

[quote]To say that at every moment I am not having sex that results in pregnacy  I am contracepting is ludicrous. So, is a pregnant woman or a woman giving birth contracepting?[/quote]

It requires action -- NFP is action. NFP is contraceptive. Abstinance is not just 'not having sex' it's also the choice to not have sex. That choice is contraceptive.

[quote]Pleasure is a side-effect of sex, not the main purpose.[/quote]

Pleasure is one of the purposes of sex. Even to catholics, this is true.

[quote]It is like food. Just as eating a fine meal and vomiting it up is wrong because one wants the pleasure without consequences, so is having contracepted sex. There is nothing wrong, and much right about having a tasty meal. There is also nothing wrong, and much right with having sex.[/quote]

The thing that is wrong about vomiting up food (in the non-bulemic sense) is that it is harmful for the body. The problem with bulemia is that it is a mental disorder that has very little to do with food. The problem with your analogy is that food is essential to the body and sex without contraceptives is not. If one vomits up all the food zie eats, zie will die. If one has no sex, or only sex with condoms or NFP, zie will not die.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 23 2005, 02:19 PM'] I would just like to start by saying that I respect the choice that you make concerning your ablility and responsibility to childrearing. It takes a very big person to be able to recongize one's limits and accept them. For this I commend you.

I do not however agree with your means. [/quote]
Well, thanks for that, I guess.

[quote]I would just ask that you take a step back and view the consequences that contraceptives have had on our society. I mean really look at what removing the creation of life from the act of sex has done to this country and others... It has not allowed people to give more freely of themselves. All that it has done is enslave more people to the act of commiting sexual sins because now the consequences are not as noticible or visible. They are still there, but only compounded by condems and then swept underneath the rug comfortably so they may continue the way that they are headed without having to acknowledge the harm it has done...[/quote]

The use of birth control hasn't had a noticable adverse effect on society. We need to understand the difference between correlation and causation. However, if you are referring to "sexual sins" as the harm to society then I don't think I can have this conversation with you. It's fine to feel that sin is harmful to the individual, but to say that it harms society is preposterous.

[MichaelFilo]

Burn, disregard your friend who told you marriage is about pleasure as well as procreation and unity. Pleasure is derived from the sexual act, but never is a purpose for the sexual act. This is lust, and as Catholics we are told to turn away from lustful desires.

I am not saying that the pleasure derived from the sexual act is to be frowned upon, but it cannot be the purpose of the sexual act. Even if the lovers are inflamed with mpasisono, once they remove the procreative and unifying effects of sex then it becomes nothing but lust. The passion then becomes disordered and not loving, but selfish.

God bless,
Mikey

[Guest Eremite]

I haven't followed this thread. Just posting this article for those interested. It's entitled "Contraception: Why Not?" by Janet Smith.

[url="http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4420"]http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=4420[/url]

[toledo_jesus]

burnsspivey has a point about NFP being contraceptive. It seems to me to be awful involved for a singular purpose. Indeed you can argue that abstinence for the express purpose of avoiding pregnancy does have a contraceptive mentality.
Then again, what do I know? I'm not married.

[Guest nateharburg]

People need to understand that contraception is evil not only because it says "NO! Stay OUT of my private life!" to God, but also because many forms of contraception are ABORTIFACIENT! ALL hormonal contraception and ALL IUD's can and do kill children, albeit tiny children, in the ealiest days of their lives! Hormonal birth control factual information can be found here supporting my claim:

[url="http://www.all.org/brthcnt.htm"]http://www.all.org/brthcnt.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.epm.org/articles/26doctor.html"]http://www.epm.org/articles/26doctor.html[/url]

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 25 2005, 12:47 PM'] It's fine to feel that sin is harmful to the individual, but to say that it harms society is preposterous. [/quote]
What else is a society other than a collection of individuals that interact with each other?

Edited March 26, 2005 by Paphnutius

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Mar 25 2005, 04:02 PM'] burnsspivey has a point about NFP being contraceptive. It seems to me to be awful involved for a singular purpose. Indeed you can argue that abstinence for the express purpose of avoiding pregnancy does have a contraceptive mentality.
Then again, what do I know? I'm not married. [/quote]
Thank you.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Mar 25 2005, 07:24 PM'] What else is a society other than a collection of individuals that interact with each other? [/quote]
Some things that are harmful for certain individuals, such as the death penalty, are felt, by many catholics, as beneficial to society.

[Socrates]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Mar 25 2005, 04:02 PM'] burnsspivey has a point about NFP being contraceptive. It seems to me to be awful involved for a singular purpose. Indeed you can argue that abstinence for the express purpose of avoiding pregnancy does have a contraceptive mentality.
Then again, what do I know? I'm not married. [/quote]
Abstinence by definition is not contraception.

Contraception involves performing the sexual act while doing something deliberately to render the act infertile.

Abstinence involves not having sex. This is an important moral difference which the Catholic Church has constently recognized and taught.

[Carrie]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Mar 25 2005, 02:59 PM'] Burn, disregard your friend who told you marriage is about pleasure as well as procreation and unity. Pleasure is derived from the sexual act, but never is a purpose for the sexual act. This is lust, and as Catholics we are told to turn away from lustful desires.

I am not saying that the pleasure derived from the sexual act is to be frowned upon, but it cannot be the purpose of the sexual act. Even if the lovers are inflamed with mpasisono, once they remove the procreative and unifying effects of sex then it becomes nothing but lust. The passion then becomes disordered and not loving, but selfish.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
She didn't say the [b]purpose[/b] of the sexual act is solely pleasure. Obviously, procreation is the main objective [b]but[/b] it is a husband and a wife's duty to pleasure each other.

*warning* Graphic nature to follow *warning*

This is why a man is allowed to bring his wife to climax either before or after intercourse if she is not able to climax during intercourse. If pleasure played no part in the sexual act, then this would not be allowed, but it is.

Pick up Theology of the Body or Good News About Sex and Marriage by Christopher West. It will teach you quite a bit.

[burnsspivey]

[url="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=contraceptive"]Contraceptive[/url]
Main Entry: con·tra·cep·tion
Pronunciation: "kän-tr&-'sep-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: contra- + conception
[b]: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation[/b]
- con·tra·cep·tive /-'sep-tiv/ adjective or noun

Thus, any act that prevents conception is contraceptive. Thus abstinence and NFP are contraceptive.

[Socrates]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 28 2005, 03:53 PM'] [url="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=contraceptive"]Contraceptive[/url]
Main Entry: con·tra·cep·tion
Pronunciation: "kän-tr&-'sep-sh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: contra- + conception
[b]: deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation[/b]
- con·tra·cep·tive /-'sep-tiv/ adjective or noun

Thus, any act that prevents conception is contraceptive. Thus abstinence and NFP are contraceptive. [/quote]
Abstinence is not an act. It is not performing an act, abstaining from an act.

If any abstaining from sex was defined as contraception, then any people not having sex (including celibate nuns) would be practicing contraception. That would be absurd.

[Fidei Defensor]

All I can say is read the Book "Good News about Sex and Marriage, Answers to your honest questions about Catholic Teaching" by Christopher West. Its a great book and explains well about this.