Justifying Contraception

May 30, 2009

[quote name='TotusTuusMaria' post='1878180' date='May 29 2009, 09:38 PM']True, however the reality is no medical situation is [u]treated[/u] by birth control.

And when birth control is prescribed it is prescribed to cover the symptoms and make them disappear. And the reality is there is always another way to cover those symptoms, if that is what the patient truly wants (which it shouldn't be). We should be seeking to be treated. Not have our symptoms covered up while still suffering from the same issue/disorder.

No. It is not permissible.

Intimacy should always be open to life. When it is not, it is a sin.[/quote]

I'm finding it hard to believe this logic.
NFP is allowed but condoms are not.
Although some argue that people who practice NFP are still open to having children, I think this claim should be re-examined.

Let's take these two following websites as sources. If someone finds something more credible, please post it.

[url="http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/women/contraceptive/126.html"]http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/ho...eptive/126.html[/url]
[url="http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/condom.htm"]http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/condom.htm[/url]

Familydoctor.org claims that NFP is 90 to 98 percent effective while the latter site states that condoms are 85 to 98 percent effective. If this is true, the condom is less effective than NFP. Therefore, since both of these methods prevent pregnancy, why should we allow one over the other? If we allow one, why should we allow the more effective one? I'm having trouble understanding how someone with knowledge that both of these methods don't work 100% of the time can not use both of these methods and still be open to having children. In both situations, the goal is to reduce the chance of impregnation. Also, condoms would provide more safety if one of the members has an STD. How can NFP be justified and condoms not in this case?

Edited May 30, 2009 by musturde

May 30, 2009

[quote name='RemnantRules' post='1877900' date='May 29 2009, 06:01 PM']someone please help clarify for me how using birth control kills certain infections and/or help a woman that other medications couldn't do?[/quote]
There are some cases where a problem is truly hormonal, and thus needs to be treated with hormones. For example, some forms of endometriosis are exacerbated by oestrogen. That doesn't necessarily mean taking the Pill, but perhaps some hormonal treatment is warranted in a case like that. I would venture to say, though, that the majority of problems "treated" with the Pill do not warrant that "treatment".

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1877908' date='May 29 2009, 06:08 PM']It has nothing to do with infections but the woman's menstrual cycle and hormone levels. For example, some women go on birth control because they get severe hormonal acne before or during their monthly cycle. As for the menstrual cycle, some women's monthly cycle is not the typical 5-6 days but 2-3 weeks. I am in no way advocating taking this pill, I have heard plenty of things against it, but these are the reasons why a women goes on it. It really shouldn't be called "the birth control pill" in these instances because it is DIFFERENT that the real birth control pill.[/quote]
As I found out (after I'd been put on the Pill to "fix" my heavy, painful, irregular bleeding), there is a non-hormonal treatment for that, and I found that it worked well. I think it was called Mefenamic Acid. Anyway, I was told that that's the option for treating dysmennorhea & menorraghia for those who are opposed to hormonal treatments.

[quote name='musturde' post='1878352' date='May 30 2009, 07:22 AM']I'm finding it hard to believe this logic.
NFP is allowed but condoms are not.
Although some argue that people who practice NFP are still open to having children, I think this claim should be re-examined.

Let's take these two following websites as sources. If someone finds something more credible, please post it.

[url="http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/home/women/contraceptive/126.html"]http://familydoctor.org/online/famdocen/ho...eptive/126.html[/url]
[url="http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/condom.htm"]http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/condom.htm[/url]

Familydoctor.org claims that NFP is 90 to 98 percent effective while the latter site states that condoms are 85 to 98 percent effective. If this is true, the condom is less effective than NFP. Therefore, since both of these methods prevent pregnancy, why should we allow one over the other? If we allow one, why should we allow the more effective one? I'm having trouble understanding how someone with knowledge that both of these methods don't work 100% of the time can not use both of these methods and still be open to having children. In both situations, the goal is to reduce the chance of impregnation. Also, condoms would provide more safety if one of the members has an STD. How can NFP be justified and condoms not in this case?[/quote]
The issue isn't the effectiveness, it's the how & why of it. If NFP were only 10% effective at postponing pregnancy, that would still the only moral option of spacing births where that is justified. If condoms were only 10% effective they would still be immoral. This is because condoms seek to circumvent the couple's fertility, thus interfering with the procreative aspect of sex. It also inserts a barrier between the couple, thus interfering with the unitive aspect of sex. If a woman is charting, she simply has knowledge of when she is naturally more or less fertile. If the couple chooses to abstain during the fertile time because they have just reasons for postponing another pregnancy, their sex is still unitive and procreative, because they have done nothing to their bodies to prevent conception should it occur, even though conception is less likely at that moment. The couple's knowledge of the woman's cycle can also be of help when they are trying to conceive, since they would know when she is fertile.

May 30, 2009

It truly does lie in intent. NFP can be abused if it is used without a grave reason. If you are postponing pregnancy because you want to by a new boat/big screen tv/ fancy car, ect., then you are in the contraceptive mindset making NFP not much different than using a condom. IMHO, using NFP with a contraceptive mindset might be worse. It's a deceptive and manipulative way to get around church teachings. But, when used properly, it is a wonderful gift to couples and families. Edited May 30, 2009 by mamalove

May 30, 2009

[quote name='mamalove' post='1878393' date='May 30 2009, 10:53 AM'] :yes:

It truly does lie in intent. NFP can be abused if it is used without a grave reason. If you are postponing pregnancy because you want to by a new boat/big screen tv/ fancy car, ect., then you are in the contraceptive mindset making NFP not much different than using a condom. IMHO, using NFP with a contraceptive mindset might be worse. It's a deceptive and manipulative way to get around church teachings. But, when used properly, it is a wonderful gift to couples and families.[/quote]

The whole "grave reason" is always debated over in NFP discussions. It makes me feel as if Catholic couples who have enough money to support a child but have just gotten married and are adjusting (if they are both psychologically and emotionally healthy there is clearly no "grave reason" here) should abstain from sex entirely or should come together sparingly, since using NFP during this time would probably constitute "abuse."

May 30, 2009

[quote]The issue isn't the effectiveness, it's the how & why of it. If NFP were only 10% effective at postponing pregnancy, that would still the only moral option of spacing births where that is justified. If condoms were only 10% effective they would still be immoral. This is because condoms seek to circumvent the couple's fertility, thus interfering with the procreative aspect of sex. It also inserts a barrier between the couple, thus interfering with the unitive aspect of sex. If a woman is charting, she simply has knowledge of when she is naturally more or less fertile. If the couple chooses to abstain during the fertile time because they have just reasons for postponing another pregnancy, their sex is still unitive and procreative, because they have done nothing to their bodies to prevent conception should it occur, even though conception is less likely at that moment. The couple's knowledge of the woman's cycle can also be of help when they are trying to conceive, since they would know when she is fertile.[/quote]

Basically the only difference between the two to me is that the condom is less natural. Is that the real argument? If so, then it makes more sense. Also, if condoms are not 100% effective, then the procreative aspect is only diminished, not destroyed. Correct? If that is true, to a certain degree NFP must diminish the procreative aspect to a certain degree as well. No matter how natural the process may be, the intention remains. If a poor family can't afford another kid, why would it matter which process the family used if both of them diminish the procreative aspect? Is it just that NFP diminishes less?

The STD problem hasn't fully been answered. Do people not know or is the real answer that the other person must have unprotected or no sex in that situation? I was always taught in theology class that as long as the protein went in the right place, you're a-okay on whatever you do. Therefore, I guess someone could use a condom, take it out and go long distance. I'm being serious. Would this be sound?

Edited May 30, 2009 by musturde

May 30, 2009

[quote name='musturde' post='1878431' date='May 30 2009, 05:10 PM']Basically the only difference between the two to me is that the condom is less natural. Is that the real argument? If so, then it makes more sense. Also, if condoms are not 100% effective, then the procreative aspect is only diminished, not destroyed. Correct? If that is true, to a certain degree NFP must diminish the procreative aspect to a certain degree as well. No matter how natural the process may be, the intention remains. If a poor family can't afford another kid, why would it matter which process the family used if both of them diminish the procreative aspect? Is it just that NFP diminishes less?[/quote]
I don't think condoms are prohibited simply because they are less natural. It is a very real barrier between the spouses. And even if they weren't effective at preventing pregnancy at all, they'd still destroy the procreative aspect of sex because the intent is to circumvent your fertility and have sex without "consequences". Whether or not the couple is successful in not conceiving is irrelevant, since they are clearly trying to make sure they don't conceive. And they are doing this not by working with the natural times of fertility and infertility, but by deliberately trying to sterlise the sex act. They want to have their cake and eat it, too, so to speak.

May 30, 2009

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1878399' date='May 30 2009, 04:20 PM']The whole "grave reason" is always debated over in NFP discussions. It makes me feel as if Catholic couples who have enough money to support a child but have just gotten married and are adjusting (if they are both psychologically and emotionally healthy there is clearly no "grave reason" here) should abstain from sex entirely or should come together sparingly, since using NFP during this time would probably constitute "abuse."[/quote]
Or they could use NFP to conceive. Charting just gives the couple an awareness of the cycle.

May 30, 2009

Well what if someone's just too lazy to do NFP and has procreation in mind if the condom decides to mess up? The thing is, if people know that condoms are LESS effective, then what would be the harm in using them if the spouses were both as open to procreation as they would be if they used NFP. There is a barrier, I understand that, but by using NFP, one is only having sex on the days that a woman is much less likely to get fertile. Therefore, just by using NFP one is hindering procreation and putting an "invisible" barrier between himself and his spouse. With this train of thought, I would be against NFP as well.

Also, std question not answered .

May 30, 2009

[quote name='musturde' post='1878474' date='May 30 2009, 06:19 PM']Well what if someone's just too lazy to do NFP and has procreation in mind if the condom decides to mess up? The thing is, if people know that condoms are LESS effective, then what would be the harm in using them if the spouses were both as open to procreation as they would be if they used NFP. There is a barrier, I understand that, but by using NFP, one is only having sex on the days that a woman is much less likely to get fertile. Therefore, just by using NFP one is hindering procreation and putting an "invisible" barrier between himself and his spouse. With this train of thought, I would be against NFP as well.[/quote]

How on earth would it make sense to use a condom with the intention of it failing? Or are you meaning that they'll be welcoming to life if the condom happens to fail? Either way, the purpose of a condom is to circumvent the couple's fertility and to prevent pregnancy. That alone impairs the procreative aspect of sex.

NFP means that a woman is charting her signs of fertility, and the couple then decides whether to abstain or not during the fertile phase, judging by whether they have just reason to postpone pregnancy. It is a sacrifice, and there is no barrier in place during intercourse. One is not rendering the sex act sterile, they are simply not engaging in sex. I'm sure it's possible for NFP to not be the best if there's excessive abstinence, but in most cases that would not be the case. And of course it must be a mutual decision, and there is a lot of communication.

[quote name='musturde' post='1878474' date='May 30 2009, 06:19 PM']Also, std question not answered .[/quote]
I am not a scholar on that. My personal view is that a condom still would not be allowed, but I do not know if that is always the case.

May 30, 2009

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1878496' date='May 30 2009, 01:04 PM']NFP means that a woman is charting her signs of fertility, and the couple then decides whether to abstain or not during the fertile phase, judging by whether they have just reason to postpone pregnancy. It is a sacrifice, and there is no barrier in place during intercourse. One is not rendering the sex act sterile, they are simply not engaging in sex. I'm sure it's possible for NFP to not be the best if there's excessive abstinence, but in most cases that would not be the case. And of course it must be a mutual decision, and there is a lot of communication.[/quote]
Alright that makes more sense. Thanks.

May 30, 2009

[quote name='musturde' post='1878474' date='May 30 2009, 01:19 PM']Also, std question not answered .[/quote]

[url="http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=67"]http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php...&entryid=67[/url]

[url="http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=313"]http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php...amp;entryid=313[/url]

May 30, 2009

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1878509' date='May 30 2009, 02:18 PM'][url="http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=67"]http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php...&entryid=67[/url]

[url="http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php?id=7&entryid=313"]http://www.chastity.com/chastity/index.php...amp;entryid=313[/url][/quote]

Thanks, that still doesn't answer my question though. That only answers if I want to use a condom "just in case" not if I know my spouse has HIV. The site even admits that condoms would help prevent infection if the other member has HIV.

May 30, 2009

[quote name='musturde' post='1878505' date='May 30 2009, 07:56 PM']Alright that makes more sense. Thanks.[/quote]
You're welcome. Took me awhile to understand it at first, so I understand where you're coming from.

May 30, 2009

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1878357' date='May 30 2009, 03:10 AM']This is because condoms seek to circumvent the couple's fertility, thus interfering with the procreative aspect of sex. It also inserts a barrier between the couple, thus interfering with the unitive aspect of sex. If a woman is charting, she simply has knowledge of when she is naturally more or less fertile. If the couple chooses to abstain during the fertile time because they have just reasons for postponing another pregnancy, their sex is still unitive and procreative, because they have done nothing to their bodies to prevent conception should it occur, even though conception is less likely at that moment. The couple's knowledge of the woman's cycle can also be of help when they are trying to conceive, since they would know when she is fertile.[/quote]

I don't think I will ever really understand this argument.

In enumerated form, what is wrong with Birth Control?
From what I have gained the claim is it seeks to circumvent a woman's fertility and destroyes the unitive aspect of sex.

I don't see how the unitive aspect is relevent when speaking about the pill.

Regarding circumvention I don't know exactly what that means. What exactly is circumventing fertility?

May 31, 2009

i think the only consistent catholics, are those who say no to natural family planning. contraception v. NFP isn't much different, if contraception is used responsibly, when purposes are examined as to why the CC says 'no contraception' etc.

ive explained this too much in the past to explain right now, though.
ya can archive search if ya really wanna see my position.
(plus im sorta busy right now. )
i dont like conclusory statements, that's why i qualify.

Edited May 31, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

May 31, 2009

[quote name='Hassan' post='1878587' date='May 30 2009, 10:41 PM']In enumerated form, what is wrong with Birth Control?
From what I have gained the claim is it seeks to circumvent a woman's fertility and destroyes the unitive aspect of sex.

I don't see how the unitive aspect is relevent when speaking about the pill.[/quote]
The Pill can be said to destroy the unitive aspect because the woman is withholding part of herself - her fertility - from the sexual embrace. The Pill also presents other problems in that it can damage the cervix after prolonged use, and can prevent implantation of an embryo in the event that the woman does ovulate and conceive.

[quote name='Hassan' post='1878587' date='May 30 2009, 10:41 PM']Regarding circumvention I don't know exactly what that means. What exactly is circumventing fertility?[/quote]
circumvention (plural: circumventions)

1. The act of evading by going around (bypassing).
2. The act of prevailing over another by arts, address, or fraud; deception; fraud; imposture; delusion.

I am using the first definition. When a couple uses contraception, they are trying to get around their natural fertility by purposefully trying to sterilise the sex act.

May 31, 2009

Couples who use contraception are also known for have a far greater divorce rate than those who use NFP. I heard about these couples that were at a get together and the ones that were using contraception in their marriage had complaints. The wives felt like objects being used by their husbands because since they were sterilizing themselves to them they were always sexually available. So the wives started refusing them and grew to not trust their husbands as much resenting them for using them and the husbands meanwhile felt like they had to beg for sex from their wives. Yet the couples using NFP testified that they had very satisfying sex lives.

Some of the things that I like about NFP is that it really pushes a married couple to communicate and the times that they do sacrifice participating in the marital embrace on a certain day or a set of a few days because of their current circumstances that they grow in their love for love is wishing and doing what is best for another or for multiple people even to the point of sacrifice. Besides, it trains them in self mastery when need be so that they do not become slaves to birth control but are free in using self control.

By the way, soon Jason Evert will be coming out with a new booklet about NFP called "Pure Intimacy." He also has a recorded talk called "Why NFP?" for explaining the benefits for such a practice.

I'm sure about the question regarding if contraceptions are acceptable if one or both spouses has an s.t.d., particularly HIV. Perhaps a moral theologian can answer that one. I've thought about it before but since I am not even seeing anyone who contracted a disease like that I haven't really been motivated to seek out what I should do in that circumstance.

Edited May 31, 2009 by tinytherese

May 31, 2009

[quote name='mortify' post='1878242' date='May 30 2009, 12:29 AM']Yes, that's true, but the point is certain sins were tolerated. Maybe there is an in between, where we can acknowledge the sin of contraception and still tolerate it?[/quote]

I don't think "tolerated" is the right verb to describe the situation of prostitution in the Middle Ages, as described in the article you linked to. Prostitutes and their clients obviously promoted the sin and I'm sure many people who weren't directly involved effectively tolerated it by their silence, but the Church as a spiritual body in the world did not tolerate prostitution. As the article acknowledged, religious orders worked among prostitutes to encourage their conversion... that's not toleration.

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1878221' date='May 29 2009, 11:51 PM']Btw... it seems many have forgotten that there is barrier contraception (i.e. condoms), so it would leave all the talk about the Pill a moot point.[/quote]

Yes, contraception is as much a mindset and attitude as it is a method. NFP can be used with a contraceptive mentality, which isn't much better than taking a pill or using a condom.

May 31, 2009

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1878631' date='May 30 2009, 09:07 PM']i think the only consistent catholics, are those who say no to natural family planning. contraception v. NFP isn't much different, if contraception is used responsibly, when purposes are examined as to why the CC says 'no contraception' etc.[/quote]

So St. Paul was wrong?

"Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control." -1 Cor 7:5

May 31, 2009

Some couples don't use NFP... they often have twelve kids

Sign In

Justifying Contraception

Recommended Posts

musturde

Archaeology cat

mamalove

HisChildForever

musturde

Archaeology cat

Archaeology cat

musturde

Archaeology cat

musturde

tinytherese

musturde

Archaeology cat

Hassan

dairygirl4u2c

Archaeology cat

tinytherese

LouisvilleFan

LouisvilleFan

Resurrexi

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in