Is Contraception Destructive?

[tulc]

I think that contraception is immoral because it involves not giving one's whole body to the other in the sexual act. so it is a kind of lie, similar in a way to fornication. the meaning of the sexual act is the full gift of one's body and fertility

uhmmm...no, not really. But it's interesting to see what you think of people who hold a different opinion then you do. Immoral, liars and fornicators. Oh my!
tulc(always likes to know where he stands with other believers)

 

[moonkitty]

I think that contraception is immoral because it involves not giving one's whole body to the other in the sexual act. so it is a kind of lie, similar in a way to fornication. the meaning of the sexual act is the full gift of one's body and fertility

The meaning of the sexual act? What meaning? Who gets to decide the meaning? and just because someone else has a meaning for it, doesn't mean that another person may have a different reason for sex. Whatever meaning consenting adults give to the sex act is perfectly valid. You may not like their meaning, but you don't get to tell other people what their sex life should mean.

And what if the person you are having sex with doesn't want the "whole gift" ie the chance of pregnancy, How is it lying when both partners are in agreement that neither ones wants to have a child at the point? And how can it be a lie, if both partners are aware of the contraception?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I think that contraception is immoral because it involves not giving one's whole body to the other in the sexual act. so it is a kind of lie, similar in a way to fornication. the meaning of the sexual act is the full gift of one's body and fertility

So, people who are infertile, they shouldn't be allowed to copulate? After all, by not risking unwanted pregnancy, they can't possibly be able to give their bodies to each other.

It's absurd to assert that someone has to have kids to prove their love for someone.

 

[marilynm66]

Let's not call sin what the bible does not call sin and so condemned a contraceptive method . But we sure are the ones in-charge of managing this world that God has given us. I believe putting the population in control by contraception is one way to do it (abortion is not one of them). Contraception itself is not sin. It is how we use it that determines it is wrong or not.


<a href="http://www.free-power-point-templates.com/religious-powerpoint-slide-designs/">free christian powerpoint templates</a>

 

[patricius79]

So...basically, on this issue since you can't think for yourself you're just jumping on the bandwagon and hoping that other, greater people before you have sussed it out and hoping that it's not a horrific argument from tradition and authority.

well I would think that the bandwagon would be the pro-contraceptive position among Christians which is so strong now

it is more difficult to follow the teaching of the Catholic Church and the Reformers and John Wesley on this

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

well I would think that the bandwagon would be the pro-contraceptive position among Christians which is so strong now

it is more difficult to follow the teaching of the Catholic Church and the Reformers and John Wesley on this

1) There can be more than one bandwagon.

2) Just because the position of the Catholic Church is difficult to follow, does not really mean anything. Unless you are following the Catholic Church because it is difficult.


Also, you haven't actually given us any actual reason why you think contraception is immoral.

 

[ivebeenshown]

So, people who are infertile, they shouldn't be allowed to copulate? After all, by not risking unwanted pregnancy, they can't possibly be able to give their bodies to each other.

If an infertile couple engaged in the marital act, as long as the act is open to life, it is okay. It is possible to be open to life even if the possibility of conception is perceived to be none -- it is about desire and intent.

It's absurd to assert that someone has to have kids to prove their love for someone.

It's not that kids have to be had, it's that the act must be intrinsically ordered to procreation -- that is, the act's potential to result in life must not be altered by man so far as the intent of said alteration involves the desire to not have any children. Condoms, interruption, plan B, spermicide, vasectomies, and similar purposefully diminish the ability of any given sexual act to result in new life. Some medications may do the same, though the recipient of the medication may or may not be using it with the goal of contraception.

 

[tulc]

If an infertile couple engaged in the marital act, as long as the act is open to life, it is okay. It is possible to be open to life even if the possibility of conception is perceived to be none -- it is about desire and intent.

It's not that kids have to be had, it's that the act must be intrinsically ordered to procreation -- that is, the act's potential to result in life must not be altered by man so far as the intent of said alteration involves the desire to not have any children. Condoms, interruption, plan B, spermicide, vasectomies, and similar purposefully diminish the ability of any given sexual act to result in new life. Some medications may do the same, though the recipient of the medication may or may not be using it with the goal of contraception.

I'm wondering who made the above a rule for Christians?
tulc(is just curious)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If an infertile couple engaged in the marital act, as long as the act is open to life, it is okay. It is possible to be open to life even if the possibility of conception is perceived to be none -- it is about desire and intent.

Why can the desire and intent not be to engage in an intimate act with one's partner? How can one be open to life, if one only engages in unprotected sex because you know you can't get pregnant?

It's not that kids have to be had, it's that the act must be intrinsically ordered to procreation -- that is, the act's potential to result in life must not be altered by man so far as the intent of said alteration involves the desire to not have any children. Condoms, interruption, plan B, spermicide, vasectomies, and similar purposefully diminish the ability of any given sexual act to result in new life.

They also prevent serious medical complications, from the transmission of STDs to known fatal pregnancies. Would these things still be immoral? If we hand out condoms to Africa for the purpose of diminishing HIV/AIDS, is that still bad?

Some medications may do the same, though the recipient of the medication may or may not be using it with the goal of contraception.

Would abstinence between a married couple not also qualify as a purposeful act to lower the odds of having children? If a fertile man knowingly married an infertile woman, isn't he knowingly diminishing his odds of having kids? What's more important: maximising your offspring with no thought to the risks, or engaging in a lifelong commitment to the person you love?

 

[moonkitty]

If an infertile couple engaged in the marital act, as long as the act is open to life, it is okay. It is possible to be open to life even if the possibility of conception is perceived to be none -- it is about desire and intent.

It's not that kids have to be had, it's that the act must be intrinsically ordered to procreation -- that is, the act's potential to result in life must not be altered by man so far as the intent of said alteration involves the desire to not have any children. Condoms, interruption, plan B, spermicide, vasectomies, and similar purposefully diminish the ability of any given sexual act to result in new life. Some medications may do the same, though the recipient of the medication may or may not be using it with the goal of contraception.

So you're saying people should only have sex if they want to make a baby. If they don't want a baby they shouldn't be having sex.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

So you're saying people should only have sex if they want to make a baby. If they don't want a baby they shouldn't be having sex.

My Catholic teachers taught us that that WAS the former RCC position (never official) but all that changed in the midst of the sexual revolution of the 1960's when the denomination dogmatically took up an official position that, essentially, couples may have sex as often as they like (perhaps MORE often than otherwise) but have it contraceptively - in a way that will make contraception unlikely - a dogmatic embrace of contraceptive sex. They even started holding classes (perhaps right there in the parish center) to teach couples how to have contraceptive sex.






.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My Catholic teachers taught us that that WAS the former RCC position (never official) but all that changed in the midst of the sexual revolution of the 1960's when the denomination dogmatically took up an official position that, essentially, couples may have sex as often as they like (perhaps MORE often than otherwise) but have it contraceptively - in a way that will make contraception unlikely - a dogmatic embrace of contraceptive sex. They even started holding classes (perhaps right there in the parish center) to teach couples how to have contraceptive sex.

Why isn't that the case now?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Why isn't that the case now?

To be blunt, from the Catholic perspective, it's entirely and completely irrelevant. The Catholic Church asks for "quiet docility" to itself as unto God. The Catholic is "freed" from the "typically Protestant issue of 'is it true'" and instead embraces "whatever" the Catholic Church teaches "with docility" since Jesus said "whoever hears you hears me [the RCC says "me" here means itself)" - The Handbook of the Catholic Faith page 151. Docilic embrace of what is currently taught by itself is the point, not why.






.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

To be blunt, from the Catholic perspective, it's entirely and completely irrelevant. The Catholic Church asks for "quiet docility" to itself as unto God. The Catholic is "freed" from the "typically Protestant issue of 'is it true'" and instead embraces "whatever" the Catholic Church teaches "with docility" since Jesus said "whoever hears you hears me [the RCC says "me" here means itself)" - The Handbook of the Catholic Faith page 151. Docilic embrace of what is currently taught by itself is the point, not why.

So in other words, you have to believe what it tells you to believe and not ask any questions? That's quite a disturbing system. What if they told you to murder all the Jews? Would you accept that teaching with docilic embrace?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

So in other words, you have to believe what it tells you to believe and not ask any questions? That's quite a disturbing system. What if they told you to murder all the Jews? Would you accept that teaching with docilic embrace?

We're getting pretty side-tracked and I don't want to derail things....

Let me QUICKLY say this - and then if you want to discuss more, go to General Theology and ask there.... Yes, from my understanding during the years I was a student and active in the RCC, a Catholic MAY ask questions FOR THE SAKE OF CLARIFICATION, but not question (understand the difference)? I asked the very question you have here - more than once - and here's the "answer" one of my teachers gave: "Josiah - would you question the truthfulness of what God says? If not, when why question the truthfulness of what the [Catholic] Church says?" End of discussion. Now, I could seek to better understand what the RCC says all day long - that's a different issue; Catholic teachers often go over backwards to try to make the teachings of the RCC understood. They MAY even try to give some support to it - but the teachings is true BECAUSE the RCC teaches it, the RCC doesn't teach it because it's true. IMO, this is a foundational difference between Catholicism and Protestantism - although I admit not always an easy distinction. But again, we're WAY off topic. If you want to explore this more, we really need a separate thread in a different forum. MY point was the change that the RCC made in the 1960's doesn't need an explanation, from the RCC or Catholic perspective: that perspective is that when itself speaks, GOD is speaking.


I hope that helps.


I've already given my perspective vis-a-vis the issue of this thread. I do NOT find that contraceptive sex is PER SE destructive - whether the method promoted by the RCC or any other.





.

 

[patricius79]

uhmmm...no, not really. But it's interesting to see what you think of people who hold a different opinion then you do. Immoral, liars and fornicators.

I don't condemn anyone or I'd only be condemning myself, because I greatly need forgiveness and help

as to the meaning of the marital act and the moral statues of contraception ... yes, we hold very different views

but we probably have much in common which is a basis for dialogue. for example, we surely agree that we should avoid doing anything that cheapens the marital act

and we probably agree that the N.T. Canon is a point of faith. that's one of the reasons that I accept the Catholic Magisterium on this. the Catholic Magisterium is the only historic source of the N.T. Canon

 

[ivebeenshown]

Why can the desire and intent not be to engage in an intimate act with one's partner?

I did not say that cannot be the intent. In fact, the Catholic goal is to preserve the procreative and the unitive aspect.

How can one be open to life, if one only engages in unprotected sex because you know you can't get pregnant?

The couple who engages in the act during a naturally infertile period must be conscious of their own intent for doing so -- are they doing so to avoid having children for selfish purposes, being fully able to provide for a new child yet not wanting to? Or are they sincerely wanting to have a child yet taking into account their current circumstances which would not allow the child to have his/her basic necessities?

In either case, they are avoiding pregnancy -- regulating birth -- but in one case, the couple shuns the possibility of life while in the other, the couple embraces potential new life with an honest concern for the well-being of offspring.

They also prevent serious medical complications, from the transmission of STDs to known fatal pregnancies. Would these things still be immoral? If we hand out condoms to Africa for the purpose of diminishing HIV/AIDS, is that still bad?

If you're using condoms to prevent the spread of STDs, especially if you have the STD, you shouldn't be having that sex in the first place.

Would abstinence between a married couple not also qualify as a purposeful act to lower the odds of having children?

Abstinence, whether permanent or temporary, does not count as a 'purposeful act' because it is the absence of the sexual act.

If a fertile man knowingly married an infertile woman, isn't he knowingly diminishing his odds of having kids?

Obviously.

What's more important: maximising your offspring with no thought to the risks, or engaging in a lifelong commitment to the person you love?

Why the dichotomy? It is important to maximize offspring WITH thought to the risks while engaging in a lifelong commitment, which is the goal of NFP.

 

[ForaOne]

I did not say that cannot be the intent. In fact, the Catholic goal is to preserve the procreative and the unitive aspect.

The couple who engages in the act during a naturally infertile period must be conscious of their own intent for doing so -- are they doing so to avoid having children for selfish purposes, being fully able to provide for a new child yet not wanting to? Or are they sincerely wanting to have a child yet taking into account their current circumstances which would not allow the child to have his/her basic necessities?

In either case, they are avoiding pregnancy -- regulating birth -- but in one case, the couple shuns the possibility of life while in the other, the couple embraces potential new life with an honest concern for the well-being of offspring.

If you're using condoms to prevent the spread of STDs, especially if you have the STD, you shouldn't be having that sex in the first place.

Abstinence, whether permanent or temporary, does not count as a 'purposeful act' because it is the absence of the sexual act.

Obviously.

Why the dichotomy? It is important to maximize offspring WITH thought to the risks while engaging in a lifelong commitment, which is the goal of NFP.

I can't figure out how the multi-quote works, so I'll type the beginning of the paragraph I want to respond to.

"The couple who engages in the act..." Why is it selfish not to want to have children? I think it's more selfish to have children in some cases. And saying that it's selfish not to want kids is harmful. One of my mom's friends had a baby so people wouldn't think she was too selfish not to have a child. So she had a baby to make people think better of her. Not because she wanted a baby. Was she less selfish because she had kids?

"In either case, they are..." If a couple doesn't want a baby, they aren't able to meet all its basic needs. They can't give the baby all the emotional stuff it needs, even if they can physically take care of it. So anyone who doesn't want a baby is displaying concern for a potential baby by not having on.

"If you're using condoms..." But what if someone with STD's marries? And I'm not talking about getting it from sex; some STDs can be passed on from the mother. Should they refuse to have sex with their partner at all? Even if they want to have kids? I don't think that'll be a long marriage.

"Abstinence..." That's like saying I shouldn't get fired from work for not doing my work because it's the absence of doing work.

"Obviously." So is the man at risk? He's not abstinent, yet he made a choice that would result in not having children. Is that as immoral as a contraceptive supposedly is?

 

[razeontherock]

Why isn't that the case now?

Actually, it is. They have a specific code name for it. I saw it discussed recently. Yes, this makes them totally hypocritical on the whole of sexuality, IMHO. Yet for a denom that "never changes," it's a step in the right direction.

 

[razeontherock]

So in other words, you have to believe what it tells you to believe and not ask any questions? That's quite a disturbing system.

Yes. And I have been asked, in sincerity, why I don't follow their so called "authority." Of course pointing out that 4 out of 5 major Churches didn't either, and only the Church of Rome so glaringly crowned itself supreme, that didn't carry much weight ...

What if they told you to murder all the Jews? Would you accept that teaching with docilic embrace?

Fortunately I really don't have any misgivings that they might come out w/ something like that. Confessing to a Priest in the place of G-d, who is a known pedophile though ... hey if ya can't say Amen, at least say ouch.