Contraception question

[benedictine]

So, in my Bioethics class we are talking about Contraception today, tomorrow and the day after. I raised the point that as a Catholic, I am opposed to contraception. I explained why we do not accept contraception, and I gave Natural Family Planning as a form of "natural birth control," that would be acceptable. A fellow student said that they could accept the non-use of condoms, and barrier methods, but asked why the pill, which contains hormones and chemicals that were already in the body was not considered a "natural" form of birth control.

As far as I can tell, I am the only Catholic in the class. There are several protestants and an atheist, as well as one guy who is "spiritual but not religious". Any direction towards church documents or the Fathers, as well as any thoughts or comments any of you might have, would be appreciated. (I haven't checked out Theology of the Body yet, but I'm going to.)

 

[Eucharisted]

Quick Guide on Sex: http://www.christianforums.com/t7462327/

 

[Memento Mori]

Have you read Humanae Vitae?

 

[LivingWordUnity]

So, in my Bioethics class we are talking about Contraception today, tomorrow and the day after. I raised the point that as a Catholic, I am opposed to contraception. I explained why we do not accept contraception, and I gave Natural Family Planning as a form of "natural birth control," that would be acceptable. A fellow student said that they could accept the non-use of condoms, and barrier methods, but asked why the pill, which contains hormones and chemicals that were already in the body was not considered a "natural" form of birth control.

As far as I can tell, I am the only Catholic in the class. There are several protestants and an atheist, as well as one guy who is "spiritual but not religious". Any direction towards church documents or the Fathers, as well as any thoughts or comments any of you might have, would be appreciated. (I haven't checked out Theology of the Body yet, but I'm going to.)

There are many types of poisons that are "natural", but intentionally killing someone with one of these "natural" poisons is still the crime of murder. Most contraception pills have a back up system that causes a micro-abortion. So, to quote from "Horton hears a Who", "a person is a person no matter how small."

 

[Glorthac]

The pill has two steps:
1) Prevents ovulation, this isn't always successful.
2) If ovulation isn't prevented, and the egg is fertilized, it prevents the egg from attaching to the uterus.

So basically, if the sperm and egg meet, a child is conceived. But the child doesn't attach to the uterus, and starves to death. So in this way the pill causes chemical abortions. I was shocked to find out about this, many people haven't heard of this.

 

[MKJ]

Back when I was young and foolish and on the pill, I was having some trouble with my cycles while I was away on course with the army. I went to see a doctor at the base hospital, a reservist, who in his regular job was a gynecologist. He gave me a prescription for a different brand, aand told me that it varied the dose through the month to try and seem more natural "But of course it's all totally unnatural" he said.

I think what you and your class need to determine is what is meant by "natural". It can be used in a lot of ways. Sometimes it means anything that goes against our instincts ("it is unnatural to be celibate"), other times anything not man made ("pot is natural so it is ok").

But I think in this sense it means fundamentally changing the way our body works and was meant to work. Subverting the natural processes, and making the normal (fertility) abnormal. By using contraception you are actually making your body not work the way it is supposed to.

In most cases, medicine is meant to return the body to normal function. Glasses or heart medicine might be unnatural in one sense, but they are trying to make your body work more the way it should. In some cases we have to compromise because we aren't able to do better, (my dad for example is on a medication for anxiety which makes him sleepy and a bit muddled at times) but the goal is always to have a properly functioning body.

So it isn't the way the pill works that makes it unnatural, it is it's goal - to make sex infertile.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

There are two parts to sex, the unitive and the procreative. Contraception intentionally denies the second part but also denies the first. Husband and wife are a reflection of Christ and the Church, as St. Paul tells us, which is why it is important to have the unitive aspect and be open to procreation if God wills it.

Contraception is always illicit, it is an intrinsic evil. NFP is acceptable if there is a grave cause. Unfortunately, today NFP has become "Catholic birth control" and annulments have become "Catholic divorce". It's more complicated than that.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

Nonetheless, the moral lawfulness of such conduct [recourse to infertile periods -- NFP] of husband and wife should be affirmed or denied according as their intention to observe constantly those periods is or is not based on sufficiently morally sure motives. The mere fact that husband and wife do not offend the nature of the act and are even ready to accept and bring up the child, who, notwithstanding their precautions, might be born, would not be itself sufficient to guarantee the rectitude of their intention and the unobjectionable morality of their motives.

The reason is that marriage obliges the partners to a state of life, which even as it confers certain rights so it also imposes the accomplishment of a positive work concerning the state itself. In such a case, the general principle may be applied that a positive action may be omitted if grave motives, independent of the good will of those who are obliged to perform it, show that its performance is inopportune, or prove that it may not be claimed with equal right by the petitioner -- in this case, mankind.

 

[dusky_tresses]

I still don't understand how NFP is scripturally correct when the Bible says that it's wrong to abstain from sex for a long period of time, even by mutual consent.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I still don't understand how NFP is scripturally correct when the Bible says that it's wrong to abstain from sex for a long period of time, even by mutual consent.

That's not exactly what St. Paul says:

Let the husband render the debt to his wife, and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer; and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency.

St. Paul says that we should render the marital debt (have sex) but we should also, for a time, abstain, by mutual consent, that we should focus on prayer.

It is laudable to abstain for short periods. It is not a sin to abstain for long periods, even permanently, as Our Lady and St. Joseph did. What long periods of abstinence do, however, is create opportunity for satan to work at tempting people to be unfaithful to their spouse and find physical intimacy elsewhere.

However, abstaining from sex for a week does not constitute a long period of time. Most people abstain during periods (how long before/after is up to the couple, what they're comfortable with). It is not much to avoid the week (again, more or less) opposite that when fertility is the highest (though there are much more complex systems) if you need to limit your chances of getting pregnant for some serious reason. Certainly, you can make up for it in those two remaining weeks!

 

[dusky_tresses]

Why is NFP marketed as "Catholic birth control" if it's not supposed to be birth control? I have yet to go to a Catholic church where it's not referred to as acceptable birth control.

 

[Gwendolyn]

The pill uses synthetic hormones...........

And the main issue (aside from abortefacient qualities) is that they "trick" your body into behaving unnaturally - that is, acting as though it is pregnant all the time, which is not normal.

 

[dusky_tresses]

The pill uses synthetic hormones...........

And the main issue (aside from abortefacient qualities) is that they "trick" your body into behaving unnaturally - that is, acting as though it is pregnant all the time, which is not normal.

Not to mention the studies establishing a link between hormonal contraceptive use and decreased sex drive...how's that for irony...

I also go out of my way to avoid estrogen-mimickers, and estrogen-disruptors in my health and beauty products, so synthetic hormones have never been appealing to me.

 

[Ave Maria]

Here are some of the side effects and adverse effects of the birth control pill to show just how unnatural the birth control pill is:

• Nausea
• Weight gain
• Sore or swollen breasts
• Small amount of blood, or spotting, between periods
• Lighter periods - These are not "true" periods as you do not ovulate
• Mood changes - It often makes depression worse
• Abdominal pain (stomach pain)
• Chest pain
• Headaches (severe)
• Eye problems (blurred vision)
• Swelling and/or aching in the legs and thighs

Also, those who smoke have an increased risk of developing blood clots when on the birth control pill. Not to mention that it raises your risk of heart attack and stroke.

Birth control pills can hardly qualify as medicine. Medicine is supposed to heal and make your body work more normally or naturally, not less normally and less naturally. Also, medicine is not supposed to kill either and birth control pills do have the potential to kill.

 

[benedictaoo]

So, in my Bioethics class we are talking about Contraception today, tomorrow and the day after. I raised the point that as a Catholic, I am opposed to contraception. I explained why we do not accept contraception, and I gave Natural Family Planning as a form of "natural birth control," that would be acceptable. A fellow student said that they could accept the non-use of condoms, and barrier methods, but asked why the pill, which contains hormones and chemicals that were already in the body was not considered a "natural" form of birth control.

As far as I can tell, I am the only Catholic in the class. There are several protestants and an atheist, as well as one guy who is "spiritual but not religious". Any direction towards church documents or the Fathers, as well as any thoughts or comments any of you might have, would be appreciated. (I haven't checked out Theology of the Body yet, but I'm going to.)

No... don't present it like that. Tell who ever it is, because it takes a working thing and renders it non working for what reason? To control birth through artificial chemicals in the body- arbitrarily altering it. so not natural or cool.

NFP is not a form of birth control. It's also used to plan pregnancies as well.

It is just what it say it is, natural family planning but it leaves us open and seeking God's will, working with how He created us to be.


We pray and discern God's will on day to day a biases, it's so not birth control.

It's a daily discernment, not a monthly or every 5 years discernment. It's working closely with God and letting Him in on it, being open to life. Birth control is about closing one self off to life and God and controlling what goes on... not cool.

We are not controlling birth but simply discerning God's will. We "plan" and God laughs.... as the saying goes.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Why is NFP marketed as "Catholic birth control" if it's not supposed to be birth control? I have yet to go to a Catholic church where it's not referred to as acceptable birth control.

It is acceptable if there is a grave reason for it. It is sinful if used injudiciously. Other means such as hormones (birth control pills, Depo Provera, etc), IUDs, sterilization, condoms, etc. all go against the natural function of the sexual act. The female body is naturally more fertile at some periods than others, there is nothing wrong with avoiding the more fertile periods and focusing on the less fertile periods.

 

[dusky_tresses]

The female body is naturally more fertile at some periods than others, there is nothing wrong with avoiding the more fertile periods and focusing on the less fertile periods.

That's the definition of birth control. Isn't it? You're avoiding pregnancy during the more fertile periods. I'm not trying to pick at semantics here; I would really like to understand what NFP is really about and how that fits into what I've been taught.

 

[benedictaoo]

That's the definition of birth control. Isn't it? You're avoiding pregnancy during the more fertile periods. I'm not trying to pick at semantics here; I would really like to understand what NFP is really about and how that fits into what I've been taught.

No. Artificial Birth Control is taking the fertility and making it not work, in order to control birth.

Can you use NFP as birth control? yeah you can and that is sinful as well but it's not the same as ABC which is taking what should be or is a fertile time and rendering it infertile.

We are naturally infertile at times and naturally fertile at times. NFP works with our own creation- respects it and not does use and abuse it. it does not play God with it, that is why it's acceptable and ABC isn't.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

That's the definition of birth control. Isn't it? You're avoiding pregnancy during the more fertile periods. I'm not trying to pick at semantics here; I would really like to understand what NFP is really about and how that fits into what
I've been taught.

Contraception avoids pregancy, yes. But it does so while retaining sex, it disconnects sex from reproduction and focuses on the carnal pleasures of the act. Indeed, contraception and abortion go hand-in-hand:

It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance. They who resort to these, although called by the name of spouses, are really not such; they retain no vestige of true matrimony, but pretend the honourable designation as a cloak for criminal conduct. Having also proceeded so far, they are betrayed into exposing their children, which are born against their will. They hate to nourish and retain those whom they were afraid they would beget. This infliction of cruelty on their offspring so reluctantly begotten, unmasks the sin which they had practised in darkness, and drags it clearly into the light of day. The open cruelty reproves the concealed sin. Sometimes, indeed, this lustful cruelty, or, if you please, cruel lust, resorts to such extravagant methods as to use poisonous drugs to secure barrenness; or else, if unsuccessful in this, to destroy the conceived seed by some means previous to birth, preferring that its offspring should rather perish than receive vitality; or if it was advancing to life within the womb, should be slain before it was born. Well, if both parties alike are so flagitious, they are not husband and wife; and if such were their character from the beginning, they have not come together by wedlock but by debauchery. But if the two are not alike in such sin, I boldly declare either that the woman is, so to say, the husband's harlot; or the man the wife's adulterer.

Our bodies our naturally more and less fertile during different times of the month. If you focus on those times when we are most fertile, you can use that to increase the chances of pregnancy. If you avoid having sex when we are most fertile, you can avoid pregnancy if you are trying to do that. This is very different than taking pills or using condoms or having surgery to be able to have sex without the obvious consequences of that, which is babies. NFP follows nature, contraception sinfully tries to control it.

 

[MKJ]

That's the definition of birth control. Isn't it? You're avoiding pregnancy during the more fertile periods. I'm not trying to pick at semantics here; I would really like to understand what NFP is really about and how that fits into what I've been taught.

Not all of the ways the term "birth control" are used refer to something inappropriate - people can say it and mean many different things. It is probably better to just say "artificial birth control" or "artificial contraception". If you abstain for the purpose of birth control, OTOH, then that is ok so far as it goes.

 

[benedictaoo]

No... not true.

if you use NFP as birth control you still are sinning because the sin is two fold, means we use and the intention we have.

if it's because we are anti baby, not open to life- we sin, no matter of we use an acceptable means.

if you are not Catholic, it's best not to teach Catholic morality to others.