Sex during pregnancy

garysibio · #1 Aug 10, '12, 8:29 am

This question just occurred to me this morning: If sex is primarily (not solely) for procreation, why does the Church allow sex when the wife is already pregnant? There is no chance of this resulting in another pregnancy.

Not looking for a fight. It just seems inconsistent.

thewanderer · #2 Aug 10, '12, 9:07 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysibio

This question just occurred to me this morning: If sex is primarily (not solely) for procreation, why does the Church allow sex when the wife is already pregnant? There is no chance of this resulting in another pregnancy.

Not looking for a fight. It just seems inconsistent.

Because procreation is not the only purpose of sex. Since it is one of the purposes of sex it is wrong to mess with your biology to remove your fertility from sex, but since it is not the only purpose it is fine to have sex even when you know that your body is currently, naturally, infertile. I know this can be a hard distinction to see, but does that help at all?

The Bucket · #3 Aug 10, '12, 9:20 am

It's not a terribly hard distinction to see if you approach it with the right mindset. Sexuality is meant to be procreative and unifying. We are called not to separate one from the other but fertility is God's design and there are reasons behind the naturally infertile times in a woman's cycle and why her fertility ceases altogether at a certain point in her life.

If it's hard to see the distinction, recall why in vitro fertilization is wrong, even if no embryos are destroyed in the process. Because you're separating the procreation from the unifying aspect of sex.

garysibio · #4 Aug 10, '12, 9:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thewanderer

Because procreation is not the only purpose of sex. Since it is one of the purposes of sex it is wrong to mess with your biology to remove your fertility from sex, but since it is not the only purpose it is fine to have sex even when you know that your body is currently, naturally, infertile. I know this can be a hard distinction to see, but does that help at all?

I know sex is not for procreation alone - I mentioned that on my question - but I thought that the Catholic position was that if the act were not open to procreation, it was wrong. That's how NFP avoids being another method of contraception. In theory God could heal whatever was causing a person's infertility and, in the case of the elderly we have the example of Abraham and Sarah. I suppose that God could cause a pregnant woman to conceive again but I wouldn't think that's good for the mother. Any way you cut it, sex during pregnancy doesn't seem to qualify as being open to conception. What am I missing here?

Ophelia23 · #5 Aug 10, '12, 9:25 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysibio

This question just occurred to me this morning: If sex is primarily (not solely) for procreation, why does the Church allow sex when the wife is already pregnant? There is no chance of this resulting in another pregnancy.

Not looking for a fight. It just seems inconsistent.

It's a fair question.

The purpose of Sex is to be both Unitive and Procreative, as you have hinted at. The procreative aspect of this is the openness and willingness to God's will. If God has already willed you to conceive and the woman is with child, the procreative aspect of sex is still very much being met.

garysibio · #6 Aug 10, '12, 9:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bucket

It's not a terribly hard distinction to see if you approach it with the right mindset. Sexuality is meant to be procreative and unifying. We are called not to separate one from the other but fertility is God's design and there are reasons behind the naturally infertile times in a woman's cycle and why her fertility ceases altogether at a certain point in her life.

If it's hard to see the distinction, recall why in vitro fertilization is wrong, even if no embryos are destroyed in the process. Because you're separating the procreation from the unifying aspect of sex.

I don't disagree with what you said but I must be missing something. How can sex during pregnancy be both _procreative_ and unifying?

acacia12 · #7 Aug 10, '12, 9:35 am

Wow...good question. You got me.............

garysibio · #8 Aug 10, '12, 9:36 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ophelia23

It's a fair question.

The purpose of Sex is to be both Unitive and Procreative, as you have hinted at. The procreative aspect of this is the openness and willingness to God's will. If God has already willed you to conceive and the woman is with child, the procreative aspect of sex is still very much being met.

But since there is no realistic chance of conceiving, how can sex during pregnancy (or after menopause) be honestly called procreative. I mentioned Abraham and Sarah but that's not exactly a common occurrence.

Also, to clarify, I'm not arguing in favor of contraception. I don't want anyone to think I'm defending that. I'm just wondering why the Church permits sex when conceiving is not reasonably expected.

Corki · #9 Aug 10, '12, 9:37 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysibio

I don't disagree with what you said but I must be missing something. How can sex during pregnancy be both _procreative_ and unifying?

Because you are doing it the way people do it when they want to procreate. That's what procreative means - not the (possible) end result.

Regular Atheist · #10 Aug 10, '12, 9:38 am

Because it feels good.

CatholicTrekkie · #11 Aug 10, '12, 9:41 am

When we say the sexual act has to be procreative we mean that the sexual act as a whole must be ordered twoards procreation. That is, the sexual act as a whole must be able to procreate. Each individual act need not be fertile, but the act as a whole must be built in such a way so that there is the possibility (perhaps not now, but in a different instance of participating in the sexual act) of new life coming from it. As Corki said, the end result (actually conceiving) doesn't matter. If this were the case, every individual act where you don't conceive would be immoral.

This is why sex with contraception is wrong and (partly) why homosexual relations are wrong.

Ophelia23 · #12 Aug 10, '12, 10:47 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysibio

But since there is no realistic chance of conceiving, how can sex during pregnancy (or after menopause) be honestly called procreative. I mentioned Abraham and Sarah but that's not exactly a common occurrence.

Also, to clarify, I'm not arguing in favor of contraception. I don't want anyone to think I'm defending that. I'm just wondering why the Church permits sex when conceiving is not reasonably expected.

It isn't only about being able to conceive. Being procreative is being open (pro) to God's will (creation).

Windmill · #13 Aug 10, '12, 11:02 am

When contracepting, you are purposely engaging in the act while simultaneously choosing to impede/block conception (it's primary end). However, when the wife is pregnant, you are not choosing to block conception - it has already occurred. IOW, your will is not acting against God's design.

This also holds for NFP and post-menopause. When you engage in each encounter, you are not willfully impeding conception. You are respecting God's design of "pre-programmed infertility". You are giving God His right to His creative option with each act.

As stated above, not every act has to result in (nor be the intended goal of) a conception. You simply are not to impede it (BC, withdrawal, sterilization, etc....).

thewanderer · #14 Aug 10, '12, 12:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by garysibio

I know sex is not for procreation alone - I mentioned that on my question - but I thought that the Catholic position was that if the act were not open to procreation, it was wrong. That's how NFP avoids being another method of contraception. In theory God could heal whatever was causing a person's infertility and, in the case of the elderly we have the example of Abraham and Sarah. I suppose that God could cause a pregnant woman to conceive again but I wouldn't think that's good for the mother. Any way you cut it, sex during pregnancy doesn't seem to qualify as being open to conception. What am I missing here?

You are right in saying that the Catholic position is that it must be open to life, but your unerstanding of what the Church means by 'open to life' is incorrect. The Church isn't saying that what is necessary for being open to life is that conception is possible, if that was all then they really would be hypocritical to say that artificial conraceptionis sinful while NFP (or sex while pregnant, post menopausal, after one spouse has been sterilized etc) is fine. A lot of people think the Church is being hypocritical precisely because they do not understand (or refuse to accept) what it actually is that the Church means by this word. So if you are going to understand what the Church actually teaches, the first step to that is making sure that you ignore the false understanding of the term 'open to life' which you have come to. This is not what the phrase 'open to life' means. Essentially, what is meant by open to life is that the couple must not do anything to mess with their natural fertility, ie use artificial means to render themselves, or a particular sexual act, infertile. The fact that they are currently infertile is not a problem, what is considered sinful is messing with their fertility in an attempt to artificially remove it from their particular act of sex. In which case its pretty clear that there is no contradiction in the Church saying that having sex while pregnant is not sinful. The apparant contradiction comes in through misinformation about what the Church means by 'open to life'.

ndeparis88 · #15 Aug 10, '12, 12:48 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thewanderer

You are right in saying that the Catholic position is that it must be open to life, but your unerstanding of what the Church means by 'open to life' is incorrect. The Church isn't saying that what is necessary for being open to life is that conception is possible, if that was all then they really would be hypocritical to say that artificial conraceptionis sinful while NFP (or sex while pregnant, post menopausal, after one spouse has been sterilized etc) is fine. A lot of people think the Church is being hypocritical precisely because they do not understand (or refuse to accept) what it actually is that the Church means by this word. So if you are going to understand what the Church actually teaches, the first step to that is making sure that you ignore the false understanding of the term 'open to life' which you have come to. This is not what the phrase 'open to life' means. Essentially, what is meant by open to life is that the couple must not do anything to mess with their natural fertility, ie use artificial means to render themselves, or a particular sexual act, infertile. The fact that they are currently infertile is not a problem, what is considered sinful is messing with their fertility in an attempt to artificially remove it from their particular act of sex. In which case its pretty clear that there is no contradiction in the Church saying that having sex while pregnant is not sinful. The apparant contradiction comes in through misinformation about what the Church means by 'open to life'.

I would also add that even after menopause, couples can still have sex because God can decide to make a miracle happen. Being open to life doesn't mean you can't have sex post menopause. As long as you don't continue to hinder the aspect that may be procreative which is fertility. The unitive aspect is still there.