Contraception

[Cosmic Charlie]

Do you think your misunderstanding of the teaching is helping this person come to understand the Church's position? Are you being helpful? Or are you taking this opportunity to dissent again?

Anyway, the simple answer is that not having sex is never a sin when both parties consent to abstaining. You are getting wrapped up in the "action" word and using any thing someone does as an attempt to thwart God's plan. I'll spell it out for you again...read this slowly...

Taking actions to work within God's design is not sinful. Take actions to get around God's design is sinful.

I'll type this slowly, (I have injuried myself and can't type well), this may be true but its beside the point since taking actions usings the natural rhythems of a female is still breaking the unity/procreative bond, which is the basis of what is and is not contraceptive according the the Churchs own documentation.

And I will take the stand that this is helpful. A high precentage of people who read Humane Vitae come to this same conclusion I do and I think it needs to be addressed with people who are attempting to make sense out of it.

 

[Skripper]

Let's say that there is a couple where the wife will die if she gets pregnant again. They truly (and perhaps desperately!) want to have more children. They use NFP not because they don't want children (they very much do), but to prevent the wife's death. In that case, they might not have a contraceptive mentality. I would call that a grave reason.

This is very different from using NFP to avoid having more children, but saying "I am open to life because if my method of birth control fails, I will love the child." Most ABC users will happily accept the child of an "accident." It is not an openness to life, but a contraceptive mentality.

While you make some good points, I tend to doubt the last part about "most abc users will happily accept the child of an 'accident' ." I've read somewhere, (and could probably find something giving some numbers/statistics about it), that said that most abortions are a result of ABC failure. In other words, most abortions are had by those practicing ABC and having the ABC fail. Of course, any stats available wouldn't account for those ABCers whose contraception failed and they decided to keep the baby, but the fact that most abortions are a result of ABC failure would seem to speak volumes, and would not seem to indicate that a majority of those using ABC would allow an "accidental" pregnancy to come to term.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

While you make some good points, I tend to doubt the last part about "most abc users will happily accept the child of an 'accident' ." I've read somewhere, (and could probably find something giving some numbers/statistics about it), that said that most abortions are a result of ABC failure. In other words, most abortions are had by those practicing ABC and having the ABC fail. Of course, any stats available wouldn't account for those ABCers whose contraception failed and they decided to keep the baby, but the fact that most abortions are a result of ABC failure would seem to speak volumes, and would not seem to indicate that a majority of those using ABC would allow an "accidental" pregnancy to come to term.

Since there are all kinds of people, having all kinds of sex, using all kinds of ABC some of whom are not married to each and ALL of them are included in your post and since most NFP'ers are married to each other Catholics can we limit the discussion as to who is more likely to have an abortion to those ABC'er who are Catholic, married and reasonably devote except that they are ABC'er ?

'Cause I don't think those guys are having abortions regularly as a result of failed ABC method and to include them with unmarried, 19 year old unchurched women is unfair.

 

[Skripper]

Since there are all kinds of people, having all kinds of sex, using all kinds of ABC some of whom are not married to each and ALL of them are included in your post and since most NFP'ers are married to each other Catholics can we limit the discussion as to who is more likely to have an abortion to those ABC'er who are Catholic, married and reasonably devote except that they are ABC'er ?

'Cause I don't think those guys are having abortions regularly as a result of failed ABC method and to include them with unmarried, 19 year old unchurched women is unfair.

That would make it a more fair and accurate comparison, yes . . . if one were comparing Catholics to non-Catholics, or married to unmarried, rather than ABC to NFP. But I thought the comparison was more general -- ABC to NFP (whether Catholic or not). Of course, those practicing NFP, whether Catholic or not, would tend to be married. So it's sort of hard to make a truly accurate comparison at all, other than in generalities (like RhetorTheo's was), since there are probably no statistics available. So since there probably isn't any good data to narrow it down further, it's difficult to do as you suggest. But if there were such data available, one would think, based on the data that is available, that it's likely to show a higher rate of abortion among married, ABCers than married NFPers. But like the old question of "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop?" . . . the world may never know.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

That would make it a more fair and accurate comparison, yes . . . if one were comparing Catholics to non-Catholics, or married to unmarried, rather than ABC to NFP. But I thought the comparison was more general -- ABC to NFP (whether Catholic or not). Of course, those practicing NFP, whether Catholic or not, would tend to be married. So it's sort of hard to make a truly accurate comparison at all, other than in generalities (like RhetorTheo's was), since there are probably no statistics available. So since there probably isn't any good data to narrow it down further, it's difficult to do as you suggest. But if there were such data available, one would think, based on the data that is available, that it's likely to show a higher rate of abortion among married, ABCers than married NFPers. But like the old question of "How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop?" . . . the world may never know.

I'll except this logic so long as I don't have to put up with "ABC'er are abortionists" type posts.

This is the resolution as far as I'm concerned:

ABC can be used immorally, but using it does not make a person more or less likely to get an abortion in case of failure.

Since, you and I concur that the truth is unknown, I think either side making claims as to its truth is wrong.

 

[Ave Maria]

Aren't we obligated to follow the Church's teaching on everything? I fully believe in (and if ever married) will totally follow the Church's teaching on this.

 

[RhetorTheo]

While you make some good points, I tend to doubt the last part about "most abc users will happily accept the child of an 'accident' ." I've read somewhere, (and could probably find something giving some numbers/statistics about it), that said that most abortions are a result of ABC failure. In other words, most abortions are had by those practicing ABC and having the ABC fail. Of course, any stats available wouldn't account for those ABCers whose contraception failed and they decided to keep the baby, but the fact that most abortions are a result of ABC failure would seem to speak volumes, and would not seem to indicate that a majority of those using ABC would allow an "accidental" pregnancy to come to term.

If there are 1000 people using ABC who have an "accident," and 995 keep the child while five abort, then all of the abortions are "a result of failed ABC." But that doesn't mean that most didn't keep the child.

I would ask you, in your own experience, do most of the married people you know who use ABC and have an accident abort? The ones I know would never abort.

This is beside the point, really. What is a "contraceptive mentality" for someone using ABC is a "contraceptive mentality" for someone using NFP. Regardless of the percentages between the groups, one who uses ABC to avoid pregnancy but will happily accept an "accident" has the same openness (or lack thereof) as someone using NFP with the same view. If you would state that the ABC person is not open to life because he is trying to avoid pregnancy (though would be happy with any accidents), you should say the same of the person using NFP.

 

[RhetorTheo]

Holly, yes, we are obligated to follow the Church's teaching on contraception.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Aren't we obligated to follow the Church's teaching on everything? I fully believe in (and if ever married) will totally follow the Church's teaching on this.

Yes, but I think that some people are concerned that NFP is nothing but a grand loophole and is actually a form of contraception.

In my humble opinion, of course.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Yes, but I think that some people are concerned that NFP is nothing but a grand loophole and is actually a form of contraception.

In my humble opinion, of course.

I think the people who hold that opinion are the ones who haven't been properly instructed about it's use, and probably have never even used it themselves.

Michelle

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Here's my problem: This is noew info from me on this subject so pay attention.

The Chruch is telling us two things: NFP is good. NFP is wrong.

Its telling us this across several docuemments spanning decades.

Which am I supposed to follow ? Go back to post about 20 from me, I just want a clearification. From the Vatican

Now, for Skrip:

I did some research, (just cause I like and respect you - you know how I feel about doing someone elses research)

According the Gottmacher Instutute:

about 70% of all women who get abortions are single. 93% of sexually active women use some form of contracption (The Gottmacher includes NFP in this catagory - lets not have a fight over it) so about 65% of women getting abortions are therefore:

1)Single
2) Are pregnant due to an contraceptive failure (NFP included)

so... most married ABC uses don't get abortions in case of failure, but a large percentage do (about about 40%)

I don't think we can paint married ABC'er with the same brush as single ABC'ers given this

 

[Skripper]

If there are 1000 people using ABC who have an "accident," and 995 keep the child while five abort, then all of the abortions are "a result of failed ABC." But that doesn't mean that most didn't keep the child.

This is exactly the problem I mentioned earlier, about not knowing how many ABCers decided to keep the babies. But, somehow, I really doubt it would be 995 out of 1000. If I had to guess and, admittedly, that's all it would be is a guess, I'd guess that those using ABC that opted for abortions would be much, much higher than 5 out of 1000. The stats that I've seen said that the majority of ALL abortions performed are the result of failed ABC, though it gave no information regarding the numbers/percentages of ABCers that chose to keep the babies after an "accidental" pregnancy.

I would ask you, in your own experience, do most of the married people you know who use ABC and have an accident abort? The ones I know would never abort.

I don't know. It's not a topic of conversation that's ever come up, in my experience.

This is beside the point, really. What is a "contraceptive mentality" for someone using ABC is a "contraceptive mentality" for someone using NFP.

Agreed.

Regardless of the percentages between the groups, one who uses ABC to avoid pregnancy but will happily accept an "accident" has the same openness (or lack thereof) as someone using NFP with the same view. If you would state that the ABC person is not open to life because he is trying to avoid pregnancy (though would be happy with any accidents), you should say the same of the person using NFP.

While an argument could be made to that effect, it would then come down to the morality of the means, according to Catholic moral theology. And the Church says that one means (NFP) can be morally acceptable, while the other (ABC) never is. I'll go with the Church on that.

 

[Skripper]

Here's my problem: This is noew info from me on this subject so pay attention.

The Chruch is telling us two things: NFP is good. NFP is wrong.

Its telling us this across several docuemments spanning decades.

Which am I supposed to follow ? Go back to post about 20 from me, I just want a clearification. From the Vatican

Now, for Skrip:

I did some research, (just cause I like and respect you - you know how I feel about doing someone elses research)

According the Gottmacher Instutute:

about 70% of all women who get abortions are single. 93% of sexually active women use some form of contracption (The Gottmacher includes NFP in this catagory - lets not have a fight over it) so about 65% of women getting abortions are therefore:

1)Single
2) Are pregnant due to an contraceptive failure (NFP included)

so... most married ABC uses don't get abortions in case of failure, but a large percentage do (about about 40%)

I don't think we can paint married ABC'er with the same brush as single ABC'ers given this

Agreed. Though I would say that 40% is still an extraordinarily high infant death rate, and quite higher than the hypothetical 5/1000 (which is one-half of one percent) suggested by RhetorTheo in his example.

 

[Skripper]

Well guys, I've got some errands to run . . . . I'll check back later today. Have a good day.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Skrip, I like and respect you, but if you make me do any more research on the Gottmacher site ( its really dense), we're going to have to have words:

1 in 5 (about) pregnancies (minus miscarriages) ends in abortion.

43% of pregnancies are unplanned, and half those end in abortion, sooooo... (let me do the math)


About , what is that, 18 out of 100 ABC's preg by ABC failure get abortions so 82% keep the baby.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Agreed. Though I would say that 40% is still an extraordinarily high infant death rate, and quite higher than the hypothetical 5/1000 (which is one-half of one percent) suggested by RhetorTheo in his example.

You're I misspoke:

40% or those getting a abortion due to ABC failure are married.

The actual number of married getting an abortion due to ABC failure is more like 5 out of 100, (That's an estimate from secondary data)

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

I think the people who hold that opinion are the ones who haven't been properly instructed about it's use, and probably have never even used it themselves.

Michelle

Really ? On what do you base this ?

 

[RhetorTheo]

While an argument could be made to that effect, it would then come down to the morality of the means, according to Catholic moral theology. And the Church says that one means (NFP) can be morally acceptable, while the other (ABC) never is. I'll go with the Church on that.

I agree that you need both proper motive and proper means, and ABC is always an improper means. But if the proper motives to allow NFP to prevent pregnancy licitly occur only in theory but never in fact (or very seldom in fact), then it should not be pushed as a wide-spread family planning solution.

 

[Visum Cuspis]

I'd like to point out, as an actual USER of NFP, that we do not use it as a loophole. We use it because we believe that contraception is wrong, not only because the church says it is wrong (which in and of itself is enough reason), but for a myriad of other reasons that people have already mentioned on this thread. We use it because we believe that sex is supposed to be an act of giving and love, and not an act of selfishness. We use our time of abstinense as a time of prayer and as a time to build our relaionship. As a result our marriage is not focused on sex, but on God and each other. We are open to life. We acknowledge that God could grant us the gift of parenthood at any time, because there are no guarentees when it comes to a womans cycle.

With all that said, NFP can be used in a sinful and selfish manner. It should not be used because a couple just doesn't want children so they can "enjoy life." NFP should be used with care and thoughtfulness. And the beauty of it is that every month those who practice it must think about whether or not they are ready to be parents. NFP should not be used for selfish reasons - to have a certain kind of lifestyle, or to abdicate the responsibility of parenthood to enjoy a carefree life. The reasons for using NFP should be serious.

Most people don't use NFP as a "loophole." People generally use loopholes to make their lives easier or to avoid "punishment"; abstaining from sex is not "easy," it's a sacrifice and difficult - someone seeking an easy way out or a way to enjoy sex without being "sinful" is unlikely to find NFP a solution because it's sacrificial and somene seeking a loophole probably doesn't have a sacrificial mentality.

Those who do begin using NFP simply because they aren't "allowed" to use contraception often find themselves changing their mentality, becoming open to life, and willing to accept God's plan for their parenthood.

I'd strongly recommend the book "Life Giving Love" by Kimberly Hahn. She outlines why the Church is against contraception and the purpose of NFP. It isn't a book about NFP, but about the purpose of marriage. For anyone wondering about the Church's position and reasons against contraception, this is a must-read.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Really ? On what do you base this ?

Intuition.

Michelle