Contraception

[Rhamiel]

Well with the married how is not having sex natural? For with a married couple it is a natural thing to have total intimacy isn't it?

it is a natural way to temporarily avoid having kids

 

[Thekla]

Actually, just to weigh in briefly, it is just as natural not to share intimacy for a sometime extended period of time - when one has young children, for example.
(They can be a bit needy ) The couple in this case puts aside their own sexual intimacy in service to the needs of their young children. As co-sleeping is the more common practice among humans (ie co-sleeping is more natural to humans than separate beds and bedrooms), one can conclude that extended periods without sexual intimacy would also be natural.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Actually, just to weigh in briefly, it is just as natural not to share intimacy for a sometime extended period of time - when one has young children, for example.
(They can be a bit needy ) The couple in this case puts aside their own sexual intimacy in service to the needs of their young children. As co-sleeping is the more common practice among humans (ie co-sleeping is more natural to humans than separate beds and bedrooms), one can conclude that extended periods without sexual intimacy would also be natural.

I love the rationale here and so say "ditto"!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

again, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a married person trying to avoid pregnancy

Thus, the condemnations of Catholics seem like a lot of "double talk."

Why Catholics insist on denying what it is - well, it's very odd.

In the words of my cradle Catholic brother-in-law, "When the Church makes up its mind, let me know." I suspect nearly 7 billion people on the planet (including nearly every Catholic known to me) is of the same view.




.

 

[sunlover1]

again, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a married person trying to avoid pregnancy

Maybe maybe not.
Why not just leave yourself open to God's will...

New Living Translation (©2007)
Didn't the LORD make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his.

And what does he want? Godly children from your union. So guard your

heart; remain loyal to the wife of your youth.


English Standard Version (©2001)
Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And

what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your

spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Actually, just to weigh in briefly, it is just as natural not to share intimacy for a sometime extended period of time - when one has young children, for example.

That would be contraception, wouldn't it? But, as I understand it, the new RCC position is NOT that couples need to (or even should) "not share intimacies for some extended period of time," but rather can (even should) have lots of great "shared intimacies" - every month, but contraceptively - so as unlikely to result in conception.


I don't know if counting days and purposely evading times of fertility is common in nature, and I'm not getting into the issue of what is good or bad, moral or not. Rather, is it family planning/birth control? Is it, typically, about evading conception? I realize Catholics here seem quite upset because the RCC says that what is done to "render contraception unlikely" is evil - but that's not my issue (I'm not Catholic anymore).


Thank you for weighing in!


Pax


- Josiah




.




.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I wonder if 'some' of that though, was due to plain old lack of sex ed.
My mom came from a (practicing) RCC family of 7 children
and my dad came from a (non practicing) baptist fam of 7 children as well.

Just a thought.

Good point. I think CaliforniaJosiah would say that the lack of sexed is not made up in the Catholic Church by training in approved means of contraception.

 

[patricius79]

Originally Posted by patricius79

again, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a married person trying to avoid pregnancy
​

Thus, the condemnations of Catholics seem like a lot of "double talk."

the Christian Church does not believe that the end justifies the means, or that means cannot be a moral issue

there is nothing intrinsically wrong for a married person to try to avoid pregnancy

there is something intrinsically wrong with trying to do that through the Pill or use of a condom, which are contrary to the full self-giving required in the marital act

 

[Thekla]

That would be contraception, wouldn't it? But, as I understand it, the new RCC position is NOT that couples need to (or even should) "not share intimacies for some extended period of time," but rather can (even should) have lots of great "shared intimacies" - every month, but contraceptively - so as unlikely to result in conception.


I don't know if counting days and purposely evading times of fertility is common in nature, and I'm not getting into the issue of what is good or bad, moral or not. Rather, is it family planning/birth control? Is it, typically, about evading conception? I realize Catholics here seem quite upset because the RCC says that what is done to "render contraception unlikely" is evil - but that's not my issue (I'm not Catholic anymore).


Thank you for weighing in!


Pax


- Josiah




.




.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but what I'm getting at is that having a normal married life (at least until 20th century USA) is a form of "birth control.

Only to add, that breastfeeding is also a form of birth control. Unlimited night-time feeds results in a typical birth spacing of aprox. 3 years. Most cultures (per my family doc) actually breastfeed until the child is age 4 - the effect on conception when breastfeeding an older child would likely be in part dependent on food abundance/scarcity (ie what % of calories does the child derive from breastfeeding).

 

[patricius79]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but what I'm getting at is that having a normal married life (at least until 20th century USA) is a form of "birth control.

Only to add, that breastfeeding is also a form of birth control. Unlimited night-time feeds results in a typical birth spacing of aprox. 3 years. Most cultures (per my family doc) actually breastfeed until the child is age 4 - the effect on conception when breastfeeding an older child would likely be in part dependent on food abundance/scarcity (ie what % of calories does the child derive from breastfeeding).

interesting.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That would be contraception, wouldn't it? But, as I understand it, the new RCC position is NOT that couples need to (or even should) "not share intimacies for some extended period of time," but rather can (even should) have lots of great "shared intimacies" - every month, but contraceptively - so as unlikely to result in conception.


I don't know if counting days and purposely evading times of fertility is common in nature, and I'm not getting into the issue of what is good or bad, moral or not. Rather, is it family planning/birth control? Is it, typically, about evading conception? I realize Catholics here seem quite upset because the RCC says that what is done to "render contraception unlikely" is evil - but that's not my issue (I'm not Catholic anymore).


Thank you for weighing in!


Pax


- Josiah


.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but what I'm getting at is that having a normal married life (at least until 20th century USA) is a form of "birth control.

I haven't spoken to that at all....



I have no opinion on the ethics OR the practice of all this (to be blunt, as a single, unmarried virgin it's not a topic that particularly concerns me or that I've given an enormous amount of thought to); I'm altogether undecided about all this - thus, I've repeatedly made it extremely clear I'm not speaking to the ethic or morality of ANY sexual practice among married couples for any purposes, or whether Catholic Family Planning and Birth Control is or is not good or moral. My "point" has been clearly (and repeatedly) this: it is what it is. It is (also) Family PLANNING, Birth CONTROL - how to have lots of sex (thus not abstinence, not a sexless marriage) but DONE, performed, implemented in a way that is purposely, intentionally, by design - contraceptive, to "render conception unlikely." That's what it is. This position, however, set off a firestorm of objection (most of it entirely unrelated to anything I posted).

Now, yes - one can say that contraceptive sex is "evil" or "moral" (Catholics are making both points in this thread), that Catholic Family Planning is or is not family planning (Catholics are making both points in this thread), that controling conception is or is not controling births (Catholics are making both points in this thread), or that the Catechism is right to call things done to prevent conception as "evil" or not (Catholics are making both points in this thread). I've only noted that it SEEMS like "double talk." As two posters have stated, "Maybe you guys should huddle and make up your mind." Or as my cradle Catholic brother-in-law stated, "When the Church makes up its mind, let me know." But, I've repeatedly stated such is of no concern to me - what that denomination tells it's members is moot, as far as I'm concerned (I'm no longer Catholic) - I'm just noting that it is what it is - right, wrong or (as seems to be the case) both.

Only to add, that breastfeeding is also a form of birth control.

I suppose if it was done with the sole intent, design and purpose of being able to have sex but not conceive, then - I see your point, it could be regarded as a contraceptive practice. I'm not sure it's condemned as, specificially, "evil" by the RCC - not that I've ever heard, but yes - contraceptive practices are "evil."



Thank you for your contribution to the discussion!


Pax


- Josiah





.

 

[patricius79]

Maybe maybe not.
Why not just leave yourself open to God's will...

New Living Translation (©2007)
Didn't the LORD make you one with your wife? In body and spirit you are his.

And what does he want? Godly children from your union. So guard your

heart; remain loyal to the wife of your youth.


English Standard Version (©2001)
Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And

what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your

spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.

I think those are very good verses relating to the evil of contraception

I don't think they show that it is intrinsically wrong to try to avoid pregnancy.

sometimes there are grave reasons to do so, as the Christian Church teaches

 

[MamaZ]

I think those are very good verses relating to the evil of contraception

I don't think they show that it is intrinsically wrong to try to avoid pregnancy.

sometimes there are grave reasons to do so, as the Christian Church teaches

It is the same thing

 

[patricius79]

It is the same thing

the Christian Church does not agree that it is the same thing to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] into a condom, e.g., and to abstian from sex during the fertile period

 

[sunlover1]

It is the same thing

Of course it is.

It's all sort of goofy anyhow because it's common knowledge that
most the the folks from "The CHRISTIAN Church" totally
disregard all of this birth control "control" anyhow.

So the thread begins and ends and in between Scripture is ignored
or added to..

Welcome back to GT!

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

the Christian Church does not agree that it is the same thing to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] into a condom, e.g., and to abstian from sex during the fertile period

1. This thread is about contraception - not condoms. There are many methods, techniques, approaches that are used to reduce the changes of conception while not having a sexless marriage - condoms is just ONE.

2. Until you are willing to produce documentation from "The Christian Church" - it would be good, wise and helpful for you to stop relating that it says. The ONLY references you've given are to your own specific, singular denomination: the RCC. IF you mean The CATHOLIC Church - say that, it not only is accurate and honest but keeps the thread on topic (and gives you some credibility). Just MY counsel to you (added to what others have conveyed to you on this).



.

 

[patricius79]

Of course it is.

I don't think so. why do you think NFP and contraception are associated with such different behaviors and outcomes.

e.g. periodic abstinence/self-control is associated with extremely low divorce rates

 

[sunlover1]

I don't think so.

Yes, I realize that you dont.

why do you think NFP and contraception are associated with such different behaviors and outcomes.

First of all I don't know that they are.
But if they are, there are so many possibilities we could guess all day long.
Tree huggers and hippies would be prime candidates for NFP, do those
groups display other similar traits besides being 'earthy"?
NFP is a very RCC (according to you) practice, RCC's dont GET divorces,
they normally get 'annulments' instead..

Many many many variables.

e.g. periodic abstinence/self-control is associated with extremely low divorce rates

[/QUOTE]
I showed above, why that would be a given.

 

[patricius79]

Yes, I realize that you dont.


First of all I don't know that they are.
But if they are, there are so many possibilities we could guess all day long.
Tree huggers and hippies would be prime candidates for NFP, do those
groups display other similar traits besides being 'earthy"?
NFP is a very RCC (according to you) practice, RCC's dont GET divorces,
they normally get 'annulments' instead..

Many many many variables.

annulments would be included in the data on divorces I refer to. contraception is strongly associate with divorce and NFP is strongly associated with non divorce

I think that's because self-control and planning is very different from contraception, which by nature wants sex without full self-giving

 

[sunlover1]

annulments would be included in the data on divorces I refer to. contraception is strongly associate with divorce and NFP is strongly associated with non divorce

I think that's because self-control and planning is very different from contraception, which by nature wants sex without full self-giving

Well we can only guess, .. but yeah, by nature we do seem to 'want" sex
which is probably why we're told to give our husbands "their due".. iow,
their wants, their needs...
Oh well, God made us this way, may as well make the best of it.