Semperviva Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 (edited) [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 23 2005, 10:40 AM']RESPONSE: I'm afraid I'm going to have to differ with you on this point especially as it involves the use of contraceptive pills. "not only is no action being taken which has as its object the prevention of conception (for the only act being done is the act of having sex) ..." On the contrary, a very specific action is being taken. Intercourse is being excluded during the woman's fertile period. This might be termed "temporal contraception." But the same effect can be accomplished , rather than waiting for correct hormonal conditions, simply by giving the hormones necessary. This might be termed " chemical contraception." The same mechanism is used in both cases, so its "time" or "chemical." And the intent in both cases is to exclude pregnancy while recognizing that it might occur anyway in spite of the precautions taken. LittleLes [right][snapback]620472[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Kopascetic, [i]buuuut[/i], here's the thing...some people actually [i]do[/i] use fertility cycle information as a contraception which is not damaging to the body, like tree-hugger people, Cosmo-readers ( haha I read an article in there once about this cool new trend "NFP"), etc. [i]but[/i], the [i]difference[/i] here is that the hippie's/yuppy's intent is [i]perhaps[/i] to prevent pregnancy for the wrong reasons. The term NFP should only be applied to those with the proper intent of post-poning pregnancy, and yet still being open to it, as opposed to just saying "[i]I don't feel like getting pregnant right now." [/i]Like so many things its the intent and attitude which makes or breaks it...I think... Edited June 23, 2005 by Semperviva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanCath Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Littless, As usual, you're arguments have already been refuted in previous posts, so you should probably read the WHOLE topic before responding. I am going to give you another analogy. It's from Christopher West's book [i]The Good News About Sex and Mariage[/i], which I would recomend EVERYONE to read, especially those who are having a hard time accepting the teachings of the Church on the subject of marriage and sex. When a married couple uses contraceptives when they have sex, they are essentially cutting out God from this embrace. Imagine if you were planning your wedding and you were sending invitations in the mail. But you were sending people invitations that said "We are getting married on such and such a date, PLEASE DON'T COME". Essentially, that is what this couple is doing to God. When a married couple practices NFP, they are being open to God's gift of life if it is His Will, however, they have sex knowing that He probably wont conceive a child at that particular time. This couple is sending an invitation to someone (actually inviting them) hoping and being pretty sure they wont come, but will be welcoming them in the event that they show up. Make sense? hehe I'm praraphrasing, so... it might be a little rocky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='CanCath' date='Jun 23 2005, 11:28 AM']Littless, As usual, you're arguments have already been refuted in previous posts, so you should probably read the WHOLE topic before responding. I am going to give you another analogy. It's from Christopher West's book [i]The Good News About Sex and Mariage[/i], which I would recomend EVERYONE to read, especially those who are having a hard time accepting the teachings of the Church on the subject of marriage and sex. When a married couple uses contraceptives when they have sex, they are essentially cutting out God from this embrace. Imagine if you were planning your wedding and you were sending invitations in the mail. But you were sending people invitations that said "We are getting married on such and such a date, PLEASE DON'T COME". Essentially, that is what this couple is doing to God. When a married couple practices NFP, they are being open to God's gift of life if it is His Will, however, they have sex knowing that He probably wont conceive a child at that particular time. This couple is sending an invitation to someone (actually inviting them) hoping and being pretty sure they wont come, but will be welcoming them in the event that they show up. Make sense? hehe I'm praraphrasing, so... it might be a little rocky. [right][snapback]620518[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: The flaw in you analogy is the assumption that oral contraceptives absolutely prevent conception. But they are not 100% effective. When a couple practices NFP, they realize that it too is not 100% effective. Thus, in both cases intercourse is open to the transmission of life. So your analogy doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 The differnce between the 1% chance of becoming impregnated using BC/condoms and the 1% of sex using NFP m[i]aaaaaay[/i] be that the BC/condom use is a blatant [i]interference[/i] with the hormones/processes of reproduction what have you. BC is detramental to the woman's body, causes infertility and may even be an abortafacient (sp?), in most if not all cases it is. So the BC actually hurts the body/causes abortion. I dunno what the problem with condoms are specifically, except that "[i]its like kissing your wife through a plastic bag..." [/i]and is gross. Which brings me to a question...Why is it impermissable to use a condom if in a sacramental marraige the couple is trying to prevent AIDS transmission (Although I don't know how relevent this example is, if this would ever happen, if condoms would prevents this anyway, etc etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 23 2005, 01:21 PM']The differnce between the 1% chance of becoming impregnated using BC/condoms and the 1% of sex using NFP m[i]aaaaaay[/i] be that the BC/condom use is a blatant [i]interference[/i] with the hormones/processes of reproduction what have you. BC is detramental to the woman's body, causes infertility and may even be an abortafacient (sp?), in most if not all cases it is. So the BC actually hurts the body/causes abortion. I dunno what the problem with condoms are specifically, except that "[i]its like kissing your wife through a plastic bag..." [/i]and is gross. Which brings me to a question...Why is it impermissable to use a condom if in a sacramental marraige the couple is trying to prevent AIDS transmission (Although I don't know how relevent this example is, if this would ever happen, if condoms would prevents this anyway, etc etc) [right][snapback]620699[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Any contraceptive act is intrinsically immoral. Contraception includes anything done deliberately during sexual intercourse to prohibit conception. This includes condoms. Abstaining from sex (as in NFP) is not an act, but is abstaining from an act, and therefore is not intrinsically immoral. The moral wrongness of condoms and other contraception is that they are means of having sex while deliberately preventing its procreative aspect. Harm to the woman's body or abortifacient efftects are not the only reason why artificial birth control is immoral (though if the method is abortifacient, this makes it even more gravely immoral.) Edited June 23, 2005 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanCath Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 23 2005, 03:09 PM']RESPONSE: The flaw in you analogy is the assumption that oral contraceptives absolutely prevent conception. But they are not 100% effective. When a couple practices NFP, they realize that it too is not 100% effective. Thus, in both cases intercourse is open to the transmission of life. So your analogy doesn't work. [right][snapback]620681[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You really do not know how to argue LittleLes.... BIRTH CONTROL open to LIFE ???? This is a CLEAR contradiction. You will have a hard proving that a couple using birth control is open to having children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 RightO I was just tryin to think off top ah my head[i] whyaah[/i] its bad just common sense wise i dunno- you are right[i]er[/i] than me. I kinda just assumed the whole contraception=grave evil -what with God striking dead that guy who pulled out early in the OT, whatever his name was... or was he [i]un-named[/i] ? ...but um, um---what about the whole AIDS sitchuayshun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 23 2005, 01:38 PM']Any contraceptive act is intrinsically immoral. Contraception includes anything done deliberately during sexual intercourse to prohibit conception. [right][snapback]620721[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Isin't that what I said about how BC and condoms [i]interfeeere [/i]with conception ....in a way that NFP doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanCath Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 The key words in what you quoted are "during sexual intercourse to prohibit conception". NFP does nothing during sexual intercourse to prohibit conception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 23 2005, 01:21 PM']BC/condom use is a blatant [i]interference[/i] with the hormones/processes of reproduction [right][snapback]620699[/snapback][/right] [/quote] LOL I'm just sayin... I thought this was [i]impliiiied[/i] already in the above, but i will try to be more specifico en il futuro... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanCath Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 23 2005, 03:56 PM']Isin't that what I said about how BC and condoms [i]interfeeere [/i]with conception ....in a way that NFP doesn't? [right][snapback]620739[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I guess I didn't understand what you meant by your questions then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 [i]bonum omnia...[/i] haha! I should probly ask someone who actually knows Latin about that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='Semperviva' date='Jun 23 2005, 02:12 PM']LOL I'm just sayin... I thought this was [i]impliiiied[/i] already in the above, but i will try to be more specifico en il futuro... [right][snapback]620754[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You had said: "I dunno what the problem with condoms are specifically, except that "its like kissing your wife through a plastic bag..." and is gross." An dI explained it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semperviva Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 Oh yeaah! thanks! haha i meant like on the natural level what kinda problemos they cause, nvm...i'll shut up now [i]bonum omnium?[/i] whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 [quote name='CanCath' date='Jun 23 2005, 01:46 PM']You really do not know how to argue LittleLes.... BIRTH CONTROL open to LIFE ???? This is a CLEAR contradiction. You will have a hard proving that a couple using birth control is open to having children. [right][snapback]620727[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: NFP is birth control. Its advocates claim that it is "open to life" but that is not the intent of those using it. Oral contraceptive use is also birth control. Being "open to life "is similarly not the intent of those using it. It is recognized (or should be) by those using either that pregnancy is still a possibility. Condoms are different in their actions, and hence would be regarded differently morally. LittleLes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now