Is Contraception Destructive?

[patricius79]

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. >

Hi Marilyn,

I respect your good will, and I agree that free will and stewardship does not conflict with God's Providence. (Thus I disagree with Luther and Calvin on free wll, but agree with them that contraception is seriously immoral)

From my perspective, I wouild say that the Bible doesn't teach that contraception is not a sin, or that Onan was condemned only for the disobedience and not what he did. Neither does it give the N.T. Canon, which has no historic source but Catholic Tradition. So if I accept the N.T. Canon as a matter of faith I think I must accept the Catholic and historic Protestant teaching on contraception, which seems reflected in the divorce rates of contracepting couples verses those that practice NFP

 

[razeontherock]

From my perspective, I wouild say that the Bible doesn't teach that contraception is not a sin, or that Onan was condemned only for the disobedience and not what he did.

Important to note what Onan did, and to keep that in context. Children being "arrows in your quiver" was quite literal at that point in history ...

 

[mpok1519]

yes, when women are able to avoid pregnancy via pharmaceuticals or profilactics(sp?), its sooooo destructive.

Please.

Contraceptives aren't destructive; are methods of birthcontrol such as withdrawl destructive? Are condoms destructive? How?

In what insane crackpot world do we live in where people see the choice of not having children as destructive?

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Absolutely not, in fact it's quite the opposite.

Let's take Africa as an example, an extremely impoverished continent in many areas, but also highly religious (in mid and south Africa it's primarily Muslim and Christian). The impoverished state limits education about sex and contraception already, but the church there also spends a great deal of time fighting against contraception and pushing abstinence. However, the churches in Africa are very extreme, so homosexuals, young women who are sexually active, and other highly vulnerable groups, don't seek help and certainly don't now how to use or have access to contraception.

As a result, Africa has the highest rate of AIDs in the world, incredible high pre-natal mortality and child mortality rates, and of course it increases the poverty even further. And a big part of the problem is that religious push against contraception and sex education. Fortunately, Western culture is more secular, but what you will typically see even in the United States, is young women who were never taught about contraception are more likely to get pregnant, young people are more likely to get STDs. Just all around, not letting people know about contraception is dangerous.

 

[razeontherock]

Fortunately, Western culture is more secular, but what you will typically see even in the United States, is young women who were never taught about contraception are more likely to get pregnant

Stop the presses!

 

[patricius79]

Important to note what Onan did, and to keep that in context. Children being "arrows in your quiver" was quite literal at that point in history ...

interesting.

I would add that what he did was contraception, obviously. He clearly had sex and deliberately withdrew and spilled his seed.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

interesting.

I would add that what he did was contraception, obviously. He clearly had sex and deliberately withdrew and spilled his seed.

Interesting.....


Of course, ANY alteration of sex that is contraceptive in purpose is contraception - including the now promoted RCC one of NFP. If having sex contraceptively is wrong (as you seem to suggest is the siutation with Onan) then having sex contraceptively is wrong (including what the RCC so boldly promotes and teaches). IMO.


I think the question before us is such, per se, "destructive?" Is withdrawal or NFP "destructive?" Physically, I'd say no. ANYTHING can be emotionally so, including having sex conceptively.



.

 

[Gishin]

Interesting.....


Of course, ANY alteration of sex that is contraceptive in purpose is contraception - including the now promoted RCC one of NFP. If having sex contraceptively is wrong (as you seem to suggest is the siutation with Onan) then having sex contraceptively is wrong (including what the RCC so boldly promotes and teaches). IMO.


I think the question before us is such, per se, "destructive?" Is withdrawal or NFP "destructive?" Physically, I'd say no. ANYTHING can be emotionally so, including having sex conceptively.



.

Thank you for pointing out my biggest gripe with NFP.

 

[Ave Maria]

Contraception most certainly is destructive to the sole. And yes, the Catholic Church is right in condemning the use of contraception. Read these articles:

Birth Control

Contraception and Sterilization

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Contraception most certainly is destructive to the sole. And yes, the Catholic Church is right in condemning the use of contraception. Read these articles:

Birth Control

Contraception and Sterilization

Why?

Just as a prescript, I would just like to say that monkeys touch, too.

 

[JadeTigress]

Contraception most certainly is destructive to the sole.

Yeah, I know. The last time I tried to wear condoms on my feet, my soles hurt for days.

 

[patricius79]

Thank you for pointing out my biggest gripe with NFP.

I've never understood the assumption that if contracepted sex is wrong, then any form of excercising free will to achieve or avoid pregnancy is wrong.

could someone explain that line of thinking?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thank you for pointing out my biggest gripe with NFP.

\

You and almost every Catholic known to me....

As my cradle Catholic brother-in-law says, "When the Church makes up its mind, let me know."





.

 

[Gishin]

I've never understood the assumption that if contracepted sex is wrong, then any form of excercising free will to achieve or avoid pregnancy is wrong.

could someone explain that line of thinking?

If avoiding pregnancy is wrong, then avoiding pregnancy is wrong.

 

[patricius79]

If avoiding pregnancy is wrong, then avoiding pregnancy is wrong.

is there someone saying that avoiding pregnancy is, in itself, wrong?

just because someone condemns fornication doesn't mean they believe that sex, in itself, is wrong.

likewise the Church doesn't teach that avoiding pregnancy is intrinsically wrong, but only illicit means of doing so

 

[Amiga1200]

@patricia: The problem is that the Church came up with an *entirely* arbitrary boundary between illicit methods of avoiding pregnancy and acceptable methods. Hence the perplexed objections to the rule.

 

[Gishin]

is there someone saying that avoiding pregnancy is, in itself, wrong?

just because someone condemns fornication doesn't mean they believe that sex, in itself, is wrong.

likewise the Church doesn't teach that avoiding pregnancy is intrinsically wrong, but only illicit means of doing so

That's so arbitrary and meaningless it's silly.

 

[patricius79]

That's so arbitrary and meaningless it's silly.

why? btw, I love your name. Peace, pat

 

[patricius79]

@patricia: The problem is that the Church came up with an *entirely* arbitrary boundary between illicit methods of avoiding pregnancy and acceptable methods. .

could you explain that, Amiga? Thanks, pat

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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

So sex for the purposes of intimacy, not procreation, is also allowed?

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.

That's like tackling drug abuse by saying "Don't use drugs". Evidently, a stern telling off is insufficient to prevent STD transmission. More than that, a person might not know they have an STD. A person might know they have one and be willing to use a condom to have sex - but, in the absence of condoms, has sex unprotected. A person might be driven into prostitution to survive (condoms have demonstrably helped stifle STD transmission in this case).

Making sure condoms are in good supply is better than telling people off. They will have sex, regardless of how deeply we furrow our brows, so we may as well ensure they have safe sex, rather than unsafe sex.

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

Inaction is still a concious choice you make. You could be out having oodles of babies, but you choose not to.

Pragmatically, people who pledge abstinence are as likely as everyone else to engage in sex - but are less likely to protect themselves from diseases. We can quibble over what to call it, but abstinence isn't effective at preventing disease, not in the extreme cases I mentioned earlier, nor in ideal cases I gave just now.

Obviously.

So, presumably, you don't approve, going by your claim that: "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". By marrying an infertile woman, as opposed to a fertile woman, the sexual act's potential to result in life has been altered.

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.

That as may be, but there are far more effective ways of accomplishing this, vis a vis, condoms. Suppose a woman falls in love with a man who was barn with HIV/AIDS - should she abstain from sex forever more, thereby diminishing her odds of having buckets of babies, or should she engage in sex for the purposes of procreation even though her life is at risk? What does the Church deem more important - quantity, or quality, of life?