Natural Family Planning Discussion

[rkwright]

Sex has a two fold purpose as stated; procreative and unitive.

When a couple is using contraception they are saying that they do not want to procreate, but they want the sex. They want an unnatural form of sex for reasons which sex was not designed for. Its like eating simply for the pleasure of eating, even when you know you shouldn't; like eating chocolate all day because it tastes good even though you're not hungry nor does your body need it. That is what is wrong with contraception.

NFP is spacing out pregnancies by not having sex. There is no sin in not having sex. Instead of saying 'we want sex but no kids, so we'll use contraception' the couple is saying 'we;re not ready for kids, so that means we can't have sex'.

[havok579257]

[quote name='kujo' post='1582212' date='Jun 24 2008, 09:19 PM']A contraceptive is something unnatural while NFP uses the biological processes bestowed by God in order to plan the size of your family. Of course, if God wants you to have a kid, you're having a kid...[/quote]

But the same exact thing can be said of the pill or condoms. Niether are 100%, so if God wants you to have a kid, you going to be in the 3% of the population taht the condom or pill did not work for.

It seems liek your saying that by using the pill or condoms or whatever you can counter act God's will and even though he wants you to have a child, you can stop it from happening. Which is not the case.

Why not just have sex whenever you want in a marriage and leave it up to God to decide when you are to have children and when you are not to have children. Why try to avoid God's plan for you. If you can't handle a kid at the moment, then God won;t give you a kid now. God never puts more on you than you can handle. NFP, the pill, condoms are going against God's will. Like you said, if God wants you to get pregnant, then you will, so what is point of even trying to avoid God's will?

[havok579257]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1582223' date='Jun 24 2008, 09:27 PM']Sex has a two fold purpose as stated; procreative and unitive.

When a couple is using contraception they are saying that they do not want to procreate, but they want the sex. They want an unnatural form of sex for reasons which sex was not designed for. Its like eating simply for the pleasure of eating, even when you know you shouldn't; like eating chocolate all day because it tastes good even though you're not hungry nor does your body need it. That is what is wrong with contraception.

NFP is spacing out pregnancies by not having sex. There is no sin in not having sex. Instead of saying 'we want sex but no kids, so we'll use contraception' the couple is saying 'we;re not ready for kids, so that means we can't have sex'.[/quote]

But in NFP you do have sex, just on certain days. NFP is saying we don;t want kids now, so we will have sex only on certain days.

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1582224' date='Jun 24 2008, 08:27 PM']Why not just have sex whenever you want in a marriage and leave it up to God to decide when you are to have children and when you are not to have children. Why try to avoid God's plan for you. If you can't handle a kid at the moment, then God won;t give you a kid now. God never puts more on you than you can handle. NFP, the pill, condoms are going against God's will. Like you said, if God wants you to get pregnant, then you will, so what is point of even trying to avoid God's will?[/quote]

No, the Church's position is that it doesn't go against God's will, so I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

Just because a job doesn't come fall from the sky into someone's lap doesn't mean that they don't need to make a decision to open a newspaper and find work. It's not God's will that they're unemployed. Just because we play a part and are in control of our life's decisions doesn't necessarily mean that we're going against God's will.

[u]Grave[/u] circumstances, as Alycin mentioned, permit the couple to make an informed decision in prayerfully following God's will while using NFP.

[rkwright]

Theres nothing wrong with having sex. Theres nothing wrong with not having sex. There is something wrong with having sex but in the same act preventing life.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1582217' date='Jun 24 2008, 09:22 PM']As I have already said, and many others have said, the church rejects artificial contraception. There is a difference. So if you look at it that way your whole argument kind of crumbles. It also says that NFP can only be used in grave matter.

But to humor you:

The pill is very, very different from NFP. In fact, there are so many ways that I won't list them ALL here. But worth being noted, is the fact that once you have been on the pill, and you get off it, it is likely to take several months for your body to readjust and for you to be able to conceive again. That isn't always the case, but it is common. There are some forms of art. cont. that actually make you infertile for years at a time.

Compare this with NFP. NFP is working entirely within nature, within the woman's cycle (that God created...he could have made woman perpetually fertile, He did not. Wonder why?) and is a way to POSTPONE, not avoid entirely, pregnancy. A husband and wife make a sacrifice and do not have sex during fertile time periods. This is the biggest difference. People who use art. cont. don't make that sacrifice.

If we really want to use the kind of argument you are suggesting, we could say that a husband and wife who merely kiss and cuddle one night for unity are not open to life because they chose not to have sex. It doesn't make sense. Lines have to be drawn, and the church has drawn them.[/quote]

Well a condom is more similar to NFP I guess then since the effects are only in effect when using it and not after it. Also one can use condoms to postpone, not avoid pregnancies too.

Wait, maybe I am wrong here annd if I am just ignore this part of the post, but when did sex and NFP become about sacrifice?

Lines being drawn are my whole point. The church is saying one form of contraception is ok, but not another means. Yes, one is artificial and one is not, but what is the sole purpose of both? To avoid creating life.

I would also say a couple who deliberatly abstain from sex for the sole purpose of not wanting kids right now is a form of contraceptive. Now if the couple does not want to have sex for other reasons, like they just don't feel like it, then that's fine. But if the entire reason your denying unity between each other is to avoid a kid, it seems the to go against God's will. God made sex in a marriage for a reason and to deny it, seems to go against what he set in place.

[havok579257]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1582229' date='Jun 24 2008, 09:36 PM']Theres nothing wrong with having sex. Theres nothing wrong with not having sex. There is something wrong with having sex but in the same act preventing life.[/quote]


Well you are never preventing life in any form of sex since nothing is 100% but I agree completly with what you say. NFP and contraceptives allow one to have sex but in the same act preventing life.

[kujo]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1582224' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:27 PM']But the same exact thing can be said of the pill or condoms. Niether are 100%, so if God wants you to have a kid, you going to be in the 3% of the population taht the condom or pill did not work for.

It seems liek your saying that by using the pill or condoms or whatever you can counter act God's will and even though he wants you to have a child, you can stop it from happening. Which is not the case.

Why not just have sex whenever you want in a marriage and leave it up to God to decide when you are to have children and when you are not to have children. Why try to avoid God's plan for you. If you can't handle a kid at the moment, then God won;t give you a kid now. God never puts more on you than you can handle. NFP, the pill, condoms are going against God's will. Like you said, if God wants you to get pregnant, then you will, so what is point of even trying to avoid God's will?[/quote]

Dude, re-read my posts. I think that I am being very clear.

[quote name='kujo' post='1582208' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:13 PM']The difference between NFP and contraceptives is that [size=5]contraceptives enter an unnatural element [/size]into the marital embrace with the intention of counter-acting the natural means that God has given us to space out pregnancies.[/quote]

[quote name='kujo' post='1582212' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:19 PM'][size=5]A contraceptive is something unnatural [/size]while NFP uses the biological processes bestowed by God in order to plan the size of your family. Of course, if God wants you to have a kid, you're having a kid...[/quote]


[quote name='kujo' post='1582220' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:25 PM']Wrong. [size=5]Planning the size of your family by using the knowledge of your wife's menstrual cycle is wholly different than altering it by introducing chemicals into her body (the pill), wrapping your penis with a piece of rubber (condom), or mutilating your genitalia (vasectomy/tube-tying) because it does not seek to alter what God has created. The former works with God, while the latter works against.[/size] It isn't a sin to want to limit the size of your family; however, the methods employed impact whether or not you are in danger.[/quote]

It is starting to seem like you are just looking to disagree with NFP rather than seeking the truth...

[lilac_angel]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1582231' date='Jun 24 2008, 08:37 PM']Well a condom is more similar to NFP I guess then since the effects are only in effect when using it and not after it. Also one can use condoms to postpone, not avoid pregnancies too.

Wait, maybe I am wrong here annd if I am just ignore this part of the post, but when did sex and NFP become about sacrifice?

Lines being drawn are my whole point. The church is saying one form of contraception is ok, but not another means. Yes, one is artificial and one is not, but what is the sole purpose of both? To avoid creating life.

I would also say a couple who deliberatly abstain from sex for the sole purpose of not wanting kids right now is a form of contraceptive. Now if the couple does not want to have sex for other reasons, like they just don't feel like it, then that's fine. But if the entire reason your denying unity between each other is to avoid a kid, it seems the to go against God's will. God made sex in a marriage for a reason and to deny it, seems to go against what he set in place.[/quote]

To never have children in marriage is wrong. However, limiting the amount of children under grave circumstances is not. Once the marriage is consummated, it is considered a valid marriage and is smiled upon by God. More children are always encouraged to those able, but it's not a dictated command to everyone who signs the marital contract. Not everyone is in an ideal situation to produce endless amounts of children.

If you aren't aware of the sacrificial aspect to NFP, you've never practiced it. It is [i]quite[/i] different than using condoms and often the couple cannot have sex when they most want to. Also, the sacrificial element adds to the selflessness and deference the couple makes to God.

[rkwright]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1582232' date='Jun 24 2008, 08:39 PM']Well you are never preventing life in any form of sex since nothing is 100% but I agree completly with what you say. NFP and contraceptives allow one to have sex but in the same act preventing life.[/quote]

No... during NFP you do not have sex when life is available. Using contraception you are having sex when life is available and then preventing it. Using NFP you are not having sex when life is available, but there is no sin in not having sex.

[havok579257]

[quote name='kujo' post='1582233' date='Jun 24 2008, 09:40 PM']Dude, re-read my posts. I think that I am being very clear.
It is starting to seem like you are just looking to disagree with NFP rather than seeking the truth...[/quote]


Not at all, I am trying to find the truth but it seems to be a contradiction by the church. Here is a definition of a the word contraceptive:


The intentional prevention of conception through the use of various devices, [size=5]sexual practices[/size], chemicals, drugs, or surgical procedures. This means that something ([size=5]or some behavior[/size]) becomes a contraceptive if its purpose is to prevent a woman from becoming pregnant. There are several types of contraceptives that have been officially labeled as such because they have shown reliability in preventing conception from occurring.


I understand one is man made and one is organic, but really, what makes them different. What is the intent when using NFP? Is it not so one can have sex and avoid pregnancy?

Is that not the same exact thing of condoms, to have sex and avoid pregnancy?

This is where I am stuck on, the way I understand what everyone is saying is, contraception is perfectly ok, just certain devices, techniques and such are not approved. Contraception is perfectly ok, they only thing that makes it not ok is the device, technique used. That it is ok to avoid having children as long as it is only done so by certain methods. Is this what everyone is saying?

Edited June 25, 2008 by havok579257

[rkwright]

ok as we agreed earlier, there is Nothing wrong with having sex within marriage. There is also nothing wrong with not having sex within marriage (at least for some period).

There is sin when you decide to have sex within marriage but in the same sexual act you prevent life from being transmitted. That is the definition of contraception; have sex but stop life.

There is no sin when you decide not to have sex.

As others have said there needs to be a good reason for NFP.

[havok579257]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1582239' date='Jun 24 2008, 09:46 PM']No... during NFP you do not have sex when life is available. Using contraception you are having sex when life is available and then preventing it. Using NFP you are not having sex when life is available, but there is no sin in not having sex.[/quote]


Ok, so then by that logic, is it not perfectly ok to use condoms as long as you do it when life is not avaliable?

[kujo]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1582243' date='Jun 24 2008, 10:50 PM']Not at all, I am trying to find the truth but it seems to be a contradiction by the church. Here is a definition of a the word contraceptive:
The intentional prevention of conception through the use of various devices, [size=5]sexual practices[/size], chemicals, drugs, or surgical procedures. This means that something ([size=5]or some behavior[/size]) becomes a contraceptive if its purpose is to prevent a woman from becoming pregnant. There are several types of contraceptives that have been officially labeled as such because they have shown reliability in preventing conception from occurring.
I understand one is man made and one is organic, but really, what makes them different. What is the intent when using NFP? Is it not so one can have sex and avoid pregnancy?

Is that not the same exact thing of condoms, to have sex and avoid pregnancy?

This is where I am stuck on, the way I understand what everyone is saying is, contraception is perfectly ok, just certain devices, techniques and such are not approved. Contraception is perfectly ok, they only thing that makes it not ok is the device, technique used. That it is ok to avoid having children as long as it is only done so by certain methods.[/quote]

Firstly, I don't know where that paragraph you offered as an example of the use of the word "contraceptive" came from.

Secondly, these questions have been answered by myself and by a handful of others more than a couple of times now. If you do not understand our explanation, perhaps you should seek the counsel of your pastor or the NFP liason in your diocese. Maybe you need to pray for God to soften your heart and clear your mind of the confusion you feel. The devil doesn't want us to believe and practice this stuff so he clouds our head with questions and apparent contradictions. I'll pray for you and your discernment.

[rkwright]

The intent is not the only factor involved.

Consider this analogy (Chris West's). Grandma in the hospital is in pain and dying. You honestly want her to die; she has lived a full and holy life and now is in pain and is not going to get better. You can (a) let her die naturally or (b) euthanize her.

The intent is the same, yet there is something gravely wrong with the second choice.