contraception vs nfp

[redbirdNY]

Originally Posted by Corki

It's because the purpose is only part of the equation. Yes, you can use both contraception and NFP for the purpose of delaying your next pregnancy. There is nothing wrong with the intent to delay having a child for a good reason.

But contraception interrupts the marital act itself. It renders it no longer unitive nor ordered to procreation. With NFP, whenever the couple engage in the marital act, it remains unitive and ordered to procreation.

No egg in the Fallopian tubes...........the act is not procreative in nature.

[ahs]

Originally Posted by redbirdNY

No egg in the Fallopian tubes...........the act is not procreative in nature.

The act need not be procreative...but ordered toward procreation.

[redbirdNY]

Originally Posted by domestichippie

How is it still ordered to procreation?

It's not. It is merely a matter of semantics and complicated posturing that allows this practice to be considered procreative.

However, from a safety perspective, NFP is great. No chemicals, no foams, no plastic devices or condoms. You just have to be willing to abstain during the fertile times....which unfortunately are the times that the woman is more sensitive in those private areas of her body. Men made these rules because their sexual enjoyment does not run in cycles. Women's do. She is the one who has to give up the enjoyment. I wonder often how the rules would look if women were considered God's favorite gender.

[redbirdNY]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Domes,

well supposedly, what from I have heard....is that even when the wife is not fertile, she still benefits from receiving her husbands semen... "seminal priming" if you will... supposedly helps her to have healthy future pregnancies, when they do decide to have a child. So it's ordered to procreation.

Where is this study? I have no idea, but I heard it from Jason Evert via catholic answers radio.

If ya find the official study, please share here with us.

One has to be careful with anecdotes like that which others pass off as science.

[redbirdNY]

Originally Posted by igor1980

That's what I can't understand. Isn't the INTENT of NFP to have sex without having babies? Why it is ok?

You are asking the right question....................

[redbirdNY]

Originally Posted by domestichippie

I always hear the phrase "open to children" wouldn't nfp still be a an attempt to thwart fertility?

Also what is really an appropriate reason to put off children? For instance we wanted to put off until my daughter was weaned to keep up my milk supply. Now I'm losing wieght. While Wright loss would be good for me and baby mu first child (in spite of my diabetes, which is how I ended up overweight) wad perfectly healthy as was I.

At what point are finances a good reason? Surely God would provide for those children

God helps those who help themselves.............do we really reward our earthly children for stupid decisions? No, we don't. We let them learn.

[Armor of Light]

Originally Posted by redbirdNY

Yes it does however in my opinion, The Vatican allows it since they realize it is impractical to have endless amounts of children........and of course they realize that it is unrealistic to ask married couples to completely abstain from sex.

Wrong. Your opinion that is.

NFP is allowed because it in no way closes the door to new life.

[redbirdNY]

Originally Posted by manualman

Note that I said "forcibly".

This is one of those things you might not "get" until you experience it. When is she most likely in the mood? Fertile time. NFP? Abstain. ABC? Grab the gusto, right?

The NFP couple has their faces rubbed in the procreative nature of sexual intimacy quite often. It's difficult and frustrating, but it ultimately allows the spacing of pregnancies without altering the nature of what sex IS. The ABC couple, not so much. They get in a pill routine, then nothing about their sex life inherently reminds them that the ecosystem of sexuality inludes marriage, sex AND babies. The baby part becomes an appendix instead of an integrated part of the 'book' so to speak.

Or my favorite short version. The moral difference between NFP and ABC is the EXACT reason people are so desperate to justify ABC and not have to practice NFP. The nature of the encounter still involves babies, whether any come of it or not.

Your screen name indicates that you are a male. How would you like it if your sexuality was on a monthly cycle and you had to abstain when it felt the best for you? The woman is the one who loses in this scenario. I never felt divorced from the meaning of sex with my partner when using ABC. Go for the gusto seemed like a healthy thing for me. I got lots of memories to think back on now. Even my husband liked it better when I was "primed" versus having to use drug store preparations................yeah that aint natural either.

[redbirdNY]

Originally Posted by manualman

1. I suppose so, defined properly. Intimacy isn't just the thrill, it's the mutual giving of self to the spouse. Obviously, I wasn't there and can't judge, but one would suspect that Prince Charles and Diana's kids were a result of what you wonder about....

2. No. The INTENT to forcibly divorce sex and babies is what breaks something inside us. Whether it works or not is irrelevant.

and we see where their marriage went.

[Armor of Light]

Originally Posted by redbirdNY

God helps those who help themselves.............do we really reward our earthly children for stupid decisions? No, we don't. We let them learn.

"God helps those who help themselves" is a nice sentiment, but more abused than "Judge not lest ye be judged". Well, maybe not more abused...but abused.

Who said "God helps those who help themselves", anyway?

[ahs]

Originally Posted by redbirdNY

...screen name indicates that you are a male...The woman is the one who loses in this scenario. I never felt divorced from the meaning of sex with my partner when using ABC..

One's gender or one's feelings are not relevant to whether an act is inherently sinful or not.

Regarding why contraception is not approved, yet NFP is...

Originally Posted by Armor of Light

...NFP is allowed because it in no way closes the door to new life.

Contraception is not allowed because it DOES close the door to new life.

[redbirdNY]

Originally Posted by anp1215

I love this phrase. Great way to put it.

Totally flawed logic............not even worth commenting on further.

[ahs]

Originally Posted by redbirdNY

Totally flawed logic............not even worth commenting on further.

If it's totally flawed logic, then it should be discussed further so that we can all learn from the mistake. So, let's evaluate what that poster was quoting that you said is totally flawed:

Originally Posted by Brendan

The marital act is one of full acceptance and full giving. God designed the female body to be fertile at times, and infertile at others.

NFP accepts that, and therefore when each spouse gives themselves to the other, they are giving themselves exactly as God has made them. Nothing is being held back.

When the act is interupted by artiicial means, it is a rejections of the fertiltiy of the spouse. It is, in effect saying, I love you, except for your fertility. God erred in making you fertile at this time, therefore I will change that before I accept your gift or offer mine.

That is hardly a loving thing, to reject as aspect of your spouse that God created in your spouse as a full aspect of humanity.

It is akin to saying, I love you, and I want your gift of self, but I reject your face, so you must wear this bag over your face before I will share my gift of love with you and accept yours in return.

I can pretty much guarantee that if I tried that with my wife, I'd be sleeping on the couch for the next millenium. But couples think that saying the same thing in regards to their spouses fertility is somehow an act of love? I think not.

Fertility is a God given gift and a part of each spouse. NFP respects that and each spouse accepts that in the other EXACTLY as God has given it, no changes.

Artificial means do not, they are a bag over the face of your partners fertility.

Which aspect of this flawed, and how so?

[Armor of Light]

Originally Posted by redbirdNY

Totally flawed logic............not even worth commenting on further.

I believe this is what you refer to:

When the act is interupted by artiicial means, it is a rejections of the fertiltiy of the spouse. It is, in effect saying, I love you, except for your fertility. God erred in making you fertile at this time, therefore I will change that before I accept your gift or offer mine.

"Totally flawed"?

Arbitrarily asserted so arbitrarily denied.
Better be ready to point out the flaws and defend your point.

[LovesLife]

Originally Posted by ahs

The act need not be procreative...but ordered toward procreation.

Sounds very legalistic like the Pharisees....................