Contraception And Abortion

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1698995' date='Nov 10 2008, 08:05 PM']Thanks! I have often wondered what some of those serious reasons could be...[/quote]
Well, some are for health reasons (physical & psychological). I mean, my doctor flat-out told me to wait for my back to get better or that it would get a lot worse. And there can be valid financial reasons.

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1698995' date='Nov 10 2008, 08:05 PM']And I have heard how NFP "strengthens love and marriage"

perhaps that's the greatest advantage over contraception...spouses aren't used as objects, and instead, a great deal of virtues are exercised in the practice of NFP...[/quote]
As someone who has used both contraceptives & NFP in marriage, I can't emphasise enough the beauty & freedom of NFP. We've grown much closer to God and to each other since starting to use NFP instead (and got a beautiful son, to boot )

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1698995' date='Nov 10 2008, 04:05 PM']perhaps that's the greatest advantage over contraception...spouses aren't used as objects, and instead, a great deal of virtues are exercised in the practice of NFP...[/quote]
Again, I have a question here vis-a-vis spouses being used as objects: if the purpose of sex is both unitive and creative, isn't the women simply a means to an end? It seems almost ridiculously facile to suggest that, if a man ejaculates [i]inside[/i] his wife but she doesn't get pregnant, it's all good, but if he ejaculates [i]outside[/i], that's bad.

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1698998' date='Nov 10 2008, 04:17 PM']Well, some are for health reasons (physical & psychological). I mean, my doctor flat-out told me to wait for my back to get better or that it would get a lot worse. And there can be valid financial reasons.[/quote]
It's the financial part of the equation that I struggle with. What are my financial responsibilities to my existing children? At what point, if ever, does moving from some nominal ability to responsibly provide for my children - not only food on the table and a roof over their heads - but saving for college, providing learning opportunities, etc. to simple subsistence become a valid consideration vis-a-vis birth control?

[cmotherofpirl]

When you make love when using NFP, you are very aware of your body, and the possibilities of new life. It is a conscientious and conscious act, not a method of using someone to further your own pleasure or mindless sex whenever the mood strikes you.
The back-up plan for NFP is readying the nursery. The back-up plan for contraception is murder.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1699009' date='Nov 10 2008, 04:35 PM']Again, I have a question here vis-a-vis spouses being used as objects: if the purpose of sex is both unitive and creative, isn't the women simply a means to an end? It seems almost ridiculously facile to suggest that, if a man ejaculates [i]inside[/i] his wife but she doesn't get pregnant, it's all good, but if he ejaculates [i]outside[/i], that's bad.


It's the financial part of the equation that I struggle with. What are my financial responsibilities to my existing children? At what point, if ever, does moving from some nominal ability to responsibly provide for my children - not only food on the table and a roof over their heads - but saving for college, providing learning opportunities, etc. to simple subsistence become a valid consideration vis-a-vis birth control?[/quote]
You are responsible for providing the roof, clothing and other neccessities of life. After that you have to decide what is really a necessity - second car, yearly vacations, lots of money in the bank etc. Most kids would prefer two loving parents and siblings to all the extras in the world.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1699014' date='Nov 10 2008, 04:43 PM']You are responsible for providing the roof, clothing and other neccessities of life. After that you have to decide what is really a necessity - second car, yearly vacations, lots of money in the bank etc. Most kids would prefer two loving parents and siblings to all the extras in the world.[/quote]
OK, so let's assume that I'm a loving, responsible, non-materialistic parent. For the purpose of full disclosure, we have three children and my wife is a stay-at-home mom. By necessity, we have two cars. Other than that, we don't do expensive vacations nor do we purchase significant amounts of consumer goods -- we have one TV and phone, although we do have cable and broadband access. We own our own 4 BR home. Our mortgage and a few extras - my two older children swim competitively and all three partake in town recreational sports, and my oldest plays an instrument at school for which there is a monthly fee - consume our monthly income. We are not saving for the future, either for college or retirement. We have no debt other than our mortgage. The bottom line is that we're in short-term stasis, although the medium- to long-term is scary. For example, re college, my oldest is seven years away and we have ~$15K saved up. Obviously, that's not going to do it.

So, again, the question is, at what point do my financial obligations to my current children constitute "valid financial reasons" for birth control?

[CatherineM]

We weren't in a financial position to raise a child, but that never came into the equation. My parents always seemed to find the money for what we needed, maybe not everything we wanted but everything we needed. Makes a big difference living where our health care is covered though.

With what my OBGYN told us, our pastor basically said that not doing NFP would be the equivalent of me committing suicide. I guess that's as grave as it gets.

[Barbarus]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1699035' date='Nov 10 2008, 04:21 PM']So, again, the question is, at what point do my financial obligations to my current children constitute "valid financial reasons" for birth control?[/quote]
Isn't that something for you and your wife to prayerfully consider together? As a people with limited resources in a variety of senses (time, physical, emotional, financial, and so on), parents must often make these sorts of difficult decisions about how and when to spend money, taking into consideration short, medium, and long-term needs. There is nothing that says that children have to go to college, and there are ways to pay for it if parents do not have the resources themselves. My parents contributed a grand total of $3,000 to my college education 10 years ago. They're paying nothing for my wedding. They worked to meet short-term needs as they arose for their children, and to save for their own retirement so their children would not have the added burden of caring for them. They paid off their mortgage and now own their home outright. They have six children; none of us feel bitter about what our parents gave us.

I think grave reason is something that each couple should prayerfully consider in consultation with their own consciences, and perhaps with their priest. Only you know how tightly your resources are stretched and whether you believe God is asking you to receive the gift of another child.

[Barbarus]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1698986' date='Nov 10 2008, 02:45 PM']I've often thought the same thing. What is the difference between preventing pregnancy the natural way as opposed to the chemical/unnatural way? If the same purpose is to prevent pregnancy while enjoying the marital act...? I'm not saying spouses shouldn't enjoy one another...I"m just confused about the whole prevention of birth...

Catholics raised during my parents generation never planned anything. They just let God do whatever He wanted. I'm glad, too, because I'm the baby in the family, the last child of 7 children. I probably would have never been born had my folks practiced any type of prevention...[/quote]
I've discovered that NFP really transforms the way a couple looks at fertility and children. A child conceived while a couple is using contraception is an "accident" (a word with many bad connotations) but a child conceived while a couple is attempting to avoid pregnancy using NFP is a "surprise" (a word with much nicer connotations).

Similarly, using NFP a couple views the fertile time of a woman's cycle as a sacred space, one they only enter if they are prepared to welcome the gift of a child. There is a deeper sense of the true meaning of "procreation" -- that the couple in engaging in intercourse is participating with God in the creation of a beautiful, unique human life. There is a deeper and more vibrant sense of the holy that accompanies intercourse. With contraception, the focus shifts away from procreation and hits on pleasure. We no longer see the holy in the act we engage in, instead focusing on the instant gratification of needs. Instead of prayerfully and carefully entering the sacred space of fertility, the couple pays no heed to the true meaning of sexual intimacy or procreation.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1699035' date='Nov 10 2008, 05:21 PM']OK, so let's assume that I'm a loving, responsible, non-materialistic parent. For the purpose of full disclosure, we have three children and my wife is a stay-at-home mom. By necessity, we have two cars. Other than that, we don't do expensive vacations nor do we purchase significant amounts of consumer goods -- we have one TV and phone, although we do have cable and broadband access. We own our own 4 BR home. Our mortgage and a few extras - my two older children swim competitively and all three partake in town recreational sports, and my oldest plays an instrument at school for which there is a monthly fee - consume our monthly income. We are not saving for the future, either for college or retirement. We have no debt other than our mortgage. The bottom line is that we're in short-term stasis, although the medium- to long-term is scary. For example, re college, my oldest is seven years away and we have ~$15K saved up. Obviously, that's not going to do it.

So, again, the question is, at what point do my financial obligations to my current children constitute "valid financial reasons" for birth control?[/quote]
That is between you and your wife and what you decide you can live with and without. Most people [ and I am not singling you out] can live with far less than what they think. You can garden and shop at second -hand shops, cook simple meals etc. My children and I have barely scraped by over the years with my disability check and some child support, but they have had all the necessities. Any luxury they have, they had to earn on their own, so they took jobs at between 13-15 to get the sneakers, jeans etc that their friends had. We even took in various thrown away kids along the way, all on less than $15,000 in income.
Today all my kids have full-time jobs, two are in college. They have paid for all their own clothes, cars, insurance, cell phones and college in the process, and are self-reliant self-starting-individuals that would make any mum proud.

[dairygirl4u2c]

some say it's morally acceptable to vote for a prolife person who isn't very prolife, if hte only alternative prolife person has no real chance of winning.

they say it isn't justifying the means, cause effectively, there's no choice, and the lesser of two evils then comes into play to counter the ends means problem.

(these are the people who think the ends means problem arises when voting. perhaps not all agree with them. though i'm sure i could think of a better hypo if this one doesn't work to whoever's mind)

i think it could be argued though, that effectively speaking, some folks will not change their contraceptive mentality, and so the lesser of all evils, is that they be taught contraceptives as a better means of birth control, than abortion.

who specifically would favor abortion, is hard to say, and the argumetn could be made that you cna't know who to teach it to. but, if you were to frame the argument as i just did, then it's not targeting anyone in particular.

now, this may encourage indirectly, contraception. but i suppose not voting third party might promote lesser ideals and a diluted message too though.

i don't see a clear difference with the voting thing, and the contraceptive thing.

Edited November 11, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[icelandic_iceskater]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1699193' date='Nov 10 2008, 10:36 PM']i don't see a clear difference with the voting thing, and the contraceptive thing.[/quote]
1. The objective act. One is in intrinsically evil, the other is [i]indirectly[/i] supporting an intrinsically evil act, yes. It is morally permissible, providing there isn't a more pro-life option who has a chance of winning. One is morally wrong, the other is morally indifferent.

2. The intention. In one you are directly intending to hinder procreation whilst still having sex. In the other you are intending to keep a pro-choicer out of office, even if that means supporting a candidate who supports ESCR.

3. Level of cooperation. In one you are directly committing the act. (explicit formal cooperation) In the other you are indirectly supporting the act. It would be similar to cleaning surgical tools at a hospital that performs abortions. You're aware that the act is going on, and without your cleaning the tools the act may be harder to perform, but you're in no way personally supporting it. (proximate mediate material cooperation)

4. Circumstances. In one by not committing the act you may be allowing a greater evil. On the other hand if you abstain or try NFP you aren't permitting a greater evil.

5. In one, the evil effect is the direct means to the good effect. In the other, its indirect. You are in no way directly supporting the intrinsically evil act.

Any of these on their own do not justify the situation. But when pair all the components together the act becomes morally permissible.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1699010' date='Nov 10 2008, 03:37 PM']When you make love when using NFP, you are very aware of your body, and the possibilities of new life. It is a conscientious and conscious act, not a method of using someone to further your own pleasure or mindless sex whenever the mood strikes you.
The back-up plan for NFP is readying the nursery. The back-up plan for contraception is murder.[/quote]
Great answer.

I compare NFP to the way a farmer's respects the land and uses natural techniques such as crop rotation to make best use of the fertility of land. Sometimes it is best to grow cotton. Sometimes not. Contraception is more akin to what the Romans would do when they conquer a village and need to subdue it, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_the_earth"]salt the earth[/url]. The idea is fertility is something that needs to be eradicated, so it is artificially removed from the equation.

NFP works with the system as God designed it. Contraception is trying play God. Echos of the original sin story.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]4. Circumstances. In one by not committing the act you may be allowing a greater evil. On the other hand if you abstain or try NFP you aren't permitting a greater evil.[/quote]

this was your best point, i'd say.
if someone is intent on abortion as a last resort, then contraception should be used. by not using it, and by not promoting its use as an alternative to abortion, you are permitting a greater evil.

i think the other points you bring up are arguable too, but i think i addressed the key point that counters them all, in my mind, that you are not voting for the most prolife person, and are in effect voting for murder, in my hypo. you intend it. it's a remote cooperation, but it's intended nonetheless.
saying "if you insit on abortion, then use contraception" isn't being promoted because you promote contraception,but because you promote preventing abortion.

Edited November 11, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1697803' date='Nov 8 2008, 01:28 PM']Abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work. The US spent 176 million in tax dollars last year on a failed program and has spent a total of ONE BILLION DOLLARS overall on this failed program. To date 26 states have[i] opted out [/i]of abstinence-only funding because of these failures of a [i]federally[/i] funded program which creates problems which the [i]states[/i] have to then deal with.
[i]
[url="http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/112816.php"]http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/112816.php[/url][/i]

Abstinence-only sex education may delay slightly but does not prevent unintended teen-age pregnancy or STD’s. It does not prevent vaginal or oral sex, which can transmit HIV, HPV, syphilis and gonorrhea. Many students, ignorant about STD's, have oral sex, wanting to avoid vaginal sex, and expose themselves to STD's they know nothing about. Abstinence-only education does not prevent any of this from happening.

People may argue that there is nothing wrong with unplanned adolescent pregnancies. There is plenty wrong. There is an increased incidence of low-birth weight babies, prematurity, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, and long-range developmental disabilities. The mothers often drop out of school, go on welfare and stay there.

Contraceptives can reduce unintended teen-age pregnancy by 86%.

It’s all here:

[i]http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/18/1869[/i]

From the New England Journal of Medicine, the leading medical journal in the USA.[/quote]

First off, thank you for being brave and posting a post that is quite antithetical to the ideals expressed here, and by the Church. While I do not agree with the sentiments that you expressed, they do contribute to the conversation.

You note many valid problems with abstinence-only sex-ed courses. As someone who has been successful in abstaining from sex, I can say that these problems are not due to some inherent flaw within the courses themselves, but rather within our culture, and in the values that are instilled in our children. That is not to say that I have not struggled with sexual temptation or even sexual sin, but that my parents and education were successful in instilling in me the values of abstaining until marriage.

However, we must work with what we have. Short of changing our culture and the wide-spread expectations of parents for their children (my parents expected me to abstain and I did and am still; other parents feel that it is a lost-cause), I think that we need to take an approach that adopts both perspectives.

The simple fact of the matter is that [b]if[/b] a child chooses to abstain, they will not get pregnant; nor will they contract STDs (assuming, of course, that they do not participate in other risky behaviors, such as drug use). When you say that "abstinence does not work", what you mean is that abstinence education is not successful in convincing kids to abstain from sex, not that it is unsuccessful in preventing unintended pregnancy and the spread of STDs, because both you and I would agree that it *is* successful in accomplishing these, provided that the child does indeed abstain.

On the other hand, I would note that contraceptive-based sex ed is ineffective as well. You pointed aout that it prevents 86% of pregnancies and disease transmissions. Yet, what students hear when presented with lessons on contraceptive use is that it is the "silver bullet" in this fight, that it prevents pregnancies and infections 100%. This in turn encourages risky behavior, because there are no consequences in using contraceptives. But, the grim reality is that contraceptives are not 100% effective. They serve only to reduce risk, not mitigate it entirely. This means that while risky behavior is encouraged, the protection afforded by contraceptives is not capable of being 100% effective.

Think of it like the game of Russian Roulette. A six-chamber revolver is loaded with one bullet, and each person playing the game puts the gun to their head and pulls the trigger. The odds that any one person will die are one-in-six, or 16.7%. Because the risk is high, not too many people play the game. This is like sex without contraceptives. Now, modify this game so that there are 100 chambers in the gun, only one of which is loaded. So, the odds are now 1% that any one person will die. Because the odds are much lower, this increases the number of people who are willing to play the game, and also increases the frequency that any one person will play the game. This is like sex with contraceptives. The main difference, though, between Russian Roulette with a 100-barrelled-gun and sex with contraceptives is this: most students don't realize that there is STILL risk that is associated with having sex while using contraceptives. This is like telling someone that the gun isn't loaded at all -- that there is no risk. So, they play the game even MORE often. This is, of course, a lie that puts many people at risk each year.

To me, what is needed is an education program that provides both. Something like Uganda's ABC program: "Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms". We need to first and foremost encourage people to abstain, and to be faithful to their spouses. Then, we need to provide education on how to use contraceptives, while also cautioning strongly about their inherent dangers (contraceptives failing, or causing health problems). This in turn puts the emphasis on abstinence as being the only fool-proof way of preventing problems. But, it also provides education on how to use contraceptives if the person does decide to use them (because, lets face it, condoms et al are going nowhere, and people are still going to use them). We do, however, need to be careful that we are not taking a fatalist approach, where we give up on our children in regards to them having sex before marriage. We need to continue to encourage abstinence, and to discourage contraceptive use because of its dangers.

[Slappo]

Never in any way can a Catholic in good conscience support the use of contraceptives, that includes giving proper instruction on how to use them for the sake of more then sheer knowledge. For instance, I've taught myself a lot about contraception, but not for the sake of it being a viable option, but to argue against it. No Catholic can teach contraception as a viable option, even as a back up option to abstinence.

If we were to do that, we might as well start teaching that pornography and masturbation is okay as a second option to complete chastity. After all, masturbation and pornography is safer then sex with contraception, so why not teach masturbation as back up plan #2 and contraception with sex as #3 and hey, if that fails lets teach abortion as a viable option #4 if 1-3 fail.

[b]You [i][u]cannot[/u][/i] have that mindset as a Catholic and remain in good standing with the Church.[/b]

NFP [b]cannot[/b] be taught as a means of contraceptive. Contraceptive literally means against conception, whereas NFP is not [b]meant[/b] to be against conception although many Catholics use it with this mindset, and to do so is immoral.

Why will abstinence programs seem to fail in our schools and not have high success rates? Because our teachers are teaching to abstain from sex while wearing V cut shirts that the kids can look down when she leans over her desk, because kids read sexually explicit books that include fornication etc as part of their literary classes, because our media promotes unchastity, because [b]nothing else in our country[/b] is teaching abstinence. An abstinence program has to be more then an hour long sex education class three times a week for a semester. An abstinence program has to be a mindset that goes across all of the country, and until our country is willing to truly strive for that, they will not be as successful as they should be.

A person stuck in a contraceptive mindset should not be taught that it is an okay second option to abstinence because in his mind abstinence isn't even an option. Rather the contraceptive mindset must be broken and he then must be taught the beauty of the body paired with abstinence education.