Please, Define Sex

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 23 2005, 03:10 PM']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
[right][snapback]620798[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

NFP's method of "birth control" is abstainance (NOT having sex), not contraception.
That is the difference.

Following this absurd LittleLes logic, every time anyone does NOT have sex, it would be the same as contraception.

Edited June 23, 2005 by Socrates

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 23 2005, 03:10 PM']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
[right][snapback]620798[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
RETORT:

NFP is family planning, but not birth control. NFP recognizes "If I have sex, I might get pregnant. If I don't want to get pregnant, then I shouldn't have sex." It does not frustrate the ends of the marital act. Not only that, but many NFP couples are very open to life and have many kids. If you've ever met just a few NFP couples you'd know that most of them have above average size families. They use NFP to space children out and only really use it long term if they have sufficient reason. This use requires a great amount of sacrifice as well.

Birth Control Pills recognize "If I have sex, I might get pregnant. I want to have sex, so I should take something that will 99% of the time keep me from getting pregnant." It frustrates the ends of the marital act. Not only that, but you will find that many people who have their birth control fail will either abort their kid or refer to the kid as an accident. I know couples who have had BC fail and accepted the child, but their intention in the first place was to enjoy sex without the risk of having a child.

A (maybe not very good) analogy would be someone wanting to lose weight. They know eating that big bowl of ice cream will make them gain weight and not lose weight. The NFP analogy would be that person abstaining from ice cream. The BC analogy would be that person eating the ice cream and then throwing up or taking some pill that keeps them from metabolizing the food.

On a side note, I really think the term "birth control" is an inaccurate description of what the pills, etc., do. It's really about pregnancy control.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 23 2005, 05:10 PM']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
[right][snapback]620798[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

LittleLes, ever heard of this thing called abstract thought? It's really cool, you should check it out.

Condoms are not different from oral contraceptives, morally speaking. Both create a physical barrier (one is latex, one is chemical) to contraception, <i>because</i> the couple using it still wants to have sex even though they don't want children. Both are barrier methods of birth control.

whereas with NFP, the couple does not place a barrier between them. Barrier methods suggest, "I love you...but let me take a pill so that I don't have your baby," or "I love you...but hold on let me put on this latex thing that "protects" me from you." With NFP, there are no "buts," and no barriers. The presence of a barrier suggests that the love between the couple is not complete, because if it were, they wouldn't feel the need to "protect" themselves from one another. That's not intimacy. That's not the way God intended humans to have sex.

Because there is no physical barrier (whether it's a diaphragm, spermicide, oral contraceptive) preventing conception, a married couple is able to make love to one another freely and completely. Not using birth control *liberates* couples by allowing them to completely give themselves to one another in the sexual union, which artaficial contraception prevents. NFP is fundamentally different from artificial contraception in this respect. In NFP, the couple may make love without the formal intention of having children, but there is a desire, and an openness to children that just isn't present when couples do use artificial contraception.

[CanCath]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 23 2005, 05:10 PM']RESPONSE:

NFP is birth control. Its advocates claim that it is "open to life" but that is not the intent of those using it.[right][snapback]620798[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You cannot have sex more open to life than sex without the use of any artificial means of contraceptive. The couple who has sex during the woman's unfirtle times is not artificially stopping the creation of Life. It is VERY open to life, Seeing that there is nothing in their act that could prevent them from concieving.

Contraceptives attempt to stop Life from beginning. There is NOTHING in NFP stopping Life.

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Jun 23 2005, 05:10 PM']Condoms are different in their actions, and hence would be regarded differently morally.[right][snapback]620798[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

How are Condoms different in their actions then the pill?

[ofpheritup]

You ask a great question. I asked the same question years ago. A friend told me the difference between us and the animals is that Jesus died for us and not them. That being the most important. We have free will and the ability to think logically. MOST OF US ANYWAY (joke)

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jun 23 2005, 03:29 PM']NFP's method of "birth control" is abstainance (NOT having sex), not contraception.
That is the difference.

Following this absurd LittleLes logic, every time anyone does NOT have sex, it would be the same as contraception.
[right][snapback]620825[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

RESPONSE:

Don't those practicing NFP have sex at some point?

Are really obliquely saying that sex is only justified for its procreative aspect and not its unifying aspect?

LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Jun 23 2005, 03:37 PM']RETORT:

NFP is family planning, but not birth control.  NFP recognizes "If I have sex, I might get pregnant.  If I don't want to get pregnant, then I shouldn't have sex."  It does not frustrate the ends of the marital act.  Not only that, but many NFP couples are very open to life and have many kids.  If you've ever met just a few NFP couples you'd know that most of them have above average size families.  They use NFP to space children out and only really use it long term if they have sufficient reason.  This use requires a great amount of sacrifice as well.

Birth Control Pills recognize "If I have sex, I might get pregnant.  I want to have sex, so I should take something that will 99% of the time keep me from getting pregnant."  It frustrates the ends of the marital act.  Not only that, but you will find that many people who have their birth control fail will either abort their kid or refer to the kid as an accident.  I know couples who have had BC fail and accepted the child, but their intention in the first place was to enjoy sex without the risk of having a child.

A (maybe not very good) analogy would be someone wanting to lose weight.  They know eating that big bowl of ice cream will make them gain weight and not lose weight.  The NFP analogy would be that person abstaining from ice cream.  The BC analogy would be that person eating the ice cream and then throwing up or taking some pill that keeps them from metabolizing the food.

On a side note, I really think the term "birth control" is an inaccurate description of what the pills, etc., do.  It's really about pregnancy control.
[right][snapback]620835[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


RESPONSE:

I am a member of an NFP couple (some years ago). They told me NFP was totally free of side effects. But I named my third child "Side Effect."

Implicit in your argument is the thinking that sex can only be justified by procreation because that is its primary end.

Following the same logic, eating is only justified by its primary purpose that of bodily nourishment.

But aren't we allowed dessert sometimes?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Jun 23 2005, 03:53 PM']

Condoms are not different from oral contraceptives, morally speaking.  Both create a physical barrier (one is latex, one is chemical) to contraception, <i>because</i> the couple using it still wants to have sex even though they don't want children.  Both are barrier methods of birth control.

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

No. Oral contraceptives are most definitely not a barrier method of birth control!

"Birth control pills fool the body into acting as if it's pregnant. Birth control pills, also called oral contraceptives (OCs), come in two forms: the combined OC, a combination of two synthetic hormones, estrogen and progestin; and, the minipill, which consists solely of progestin. Combined OCs are more commonly used, though both kinds are available through health care providers. The combination pill prevents ovulation by suppressing the natural hormones in the body that would stimulate the ovary to release an egg. By taking this estrogen throughout the month, you insure that no egg will be developed or released for that cycle. Progestin thickens the cervical mucus, hindering the movement of sperm. Progestin also prevents the uterus's lining from developing normally; so, if an egg were fertilized, implantation is unlikely. "

[LittleLes]

[quote name='CanCath' date='Jun 23 2005, 04:03 PM']You cannot have sex more open to life than sex without the use of any artificial means of contraceptive. The couple who has sex during the woman's unfirtle times is not artificially stopping the creation of Life. It is VERY open to life, Seeing that there is nothing in their act that could prevent them from concieving.

[/quote]

RESPONSE:

How about the timing of the act?

[Cam42]

You guys are all arguing the wrong side of this....Natural Family Planning is not, I repeat not contraception.

It is responsible conception. What is the purpose of NFP? Achievement of pregnancy by understanding the fertility cycle better and learning when the probability of concieving is highest. Then engaging in the sexual act at that time.

Remember, having sex is not a right, it is a privelege. Even those who are married are called to chasitity. Part of this is continence. There are times within the marriage, in which the sexual act is not appropriate.

NFP, optimizes the sexual action. It does not prevent the sexual union but sacntifies it.

Remember the threefold meaning of the sexual action.

1. Sacramental
2. Unitive
3. Procreative

Does NFP contradict any of these things? No. Does contraception contradict any of these things? Yes.

Can NFP be used inappropriately? Yep. It can be used as contraception, in order to avoid pregnancy. This mindset is not in keeping with Catholic teaching. The Catholic mindset of NFP is as stated above. It is not to avoid pregnancy, but rather to promote, through proper chastity, the conception and birth of a child.

Here are thoughts by Rev. Frank Pavone:
[quote]NFP does not separate sex from responsibility. The act of intercourse has a twofold meaning: sharing of love and giving of life. Married persons who perform this act must accept both sides of the coin. While not every marital act will result in a child, it must nevertheless be open to the possibility of life. The act will be "open" to life as long as the spouses do nothing to "close" it. Here's the difference between artificial birth control and NFP. In the first case, one does something (takes a pill, uses a condom, etc.) to deliberately "close" the life-giving power of sexual intercourse. In NFP, however, no such step is taken. The spouses do not act against their fertility. They do not reject the link between the two meanings of sex (love and life). They simply follow the natural patterns of the body's fertility and infertility -- patterns placed there by God Himself. In the fertile days of a woman's cycle, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the couple respectfully steps back from the act of intercourse. In using birth control devices, however, they attack the meaning of the act -- they do the action of intercourse and then undo part of it. In NFP, instead, they simply choose at times not to do the action in the first place.[/quote]

[quote]NFP is not just a "method" based on physiology. Rather, NFP is based on VIRTUE. It is based on sexual self-control, which is necessary for a healthy marriage. There are times in any marriage when spouses have to put aside their desire for sex because of sickness, fatigue, travel, or other reasons. In a healthy marriage, love is shown in many ways, and not all these ways of showing love are physical. In fact, to refrain from sex when necessary is itself an act of love. Why? Because in effect the spouses then say to each other, "I did not marry you just for sexual pleasure. I married you because I love you. You are a person, not an object. When I have sex with you, it is because I freely choose to show you my love, not because I need to satisfy an urge." Using NFP requires abstinence from intercourse during the fertile days if a pregnancy has to be avoided. This actually can strengthen the couple's sexual life. When the spouses know that they can abstain for good reasons, they also come to trust each other more, and avoid the risk of treating each other primarily as objects of sexual pleasure rather than persons. Artificial birth control, on the other hand, gives free reign to the temptation to make pleasure the dominant element, rather than virtue. It encourages couples to think that sexual self-control is not necessary. It can encourage them to become slaves to pleasure.[/quote]

[quote]NFP is not just a means of avoiding pregnancy, as artificial contraception is. Rather, it can also be used to ACHIEVE pregnancy since it pinpoints ovulation. It is a wholly positive approach to the sexual life of the spouses. It is clean, inexpensive, morally acceptable, and reliable.[/quote]

[quote]As with anything good, NFP can be misused, if a couple has the wrong motives. Married couples are called by God to cooperate generously in bringing forth and educating new life. For a couple to decide that "we don't want children at this time", there need to be serious, objective reasons (health, finances, etc.). If the reasons are not objective but selfish, then the couple cannot justify the avoidance of pregnancy just because they are using NFP to do it. In this case they are not practicing "family planning", but "family avoidance"![/quote]

He and I are in total agreement.

[Didacus]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 24 2005, 08:05 AM'][snip]
Remember the threefold meaning of the sexual action.

1.  Sacramental
2.  Unitive
3.  Procreative

[snip]

[right][snapback]621408[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hey Cam... though this may be a little off subject...

What if the woman in a marriage has had her utterus removed for medical reasons. Can a couple still engage in the sexual act although technically speaking item 3 is not possible?

And I have a little difficulty in seeing how the sexual act is a privilege rather than a rigth... little help on this one please...

Thanks..

[CanCath]

Thanks Cam, that was brilliant. (for the reccord, I never said NFP was a contraceptive...)

And Littleless,

That description of oral contraception proves how UN-open to life it is.

"Progestin also prevents the uterus's lining from developing normally; so, if an egg were fertilized, implantation is unlikely. "

A fertilized egg IS Life. Progestin undeniably kills.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Jun 24 2005, 09:20 AM']Hey Cam... though this may be a little off subject...

What if the woman in a marriage has had her utterus removed for medical reasons.  Can a couple still engage in the sexual act although technically speaking item 3 is not possible?

And I have a little difficulty in seeing how the sexual act is a privilege rather than a rigth... little help on this one please...

Thanks..
[right][snapback]621412[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The Church teaches continence and chastity. There are times when the married couple should not engage in sexual relations. The Catechism is clear about this.....so is prudence.

[Semperviva]

Scary. Imagine how many abortions have taken place from "Birth Control" pills...

[Didacus]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 24 2005, 08:37 AM']The Church teaches continence and chastity.  There are times when the married couple should not engage in sexual relations.  The Catechism is clear about this.....so is prudence.
[right][snapback]621424[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


So this couple should henceforth live in chastity?