[SacrificialLove]

I'm answering everything from a faithful Catholic's point of view, so I hope I don't have to constantly qualify my statements, LOL.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Presumably we operate by free will, right? So, if someone WOULD become pregnant (by God's will) if she had sex, but on her own accord, she abstained solely in order to prevent that, how is that any less defiant of God's will?

We can't "know" God's will. We can try to find it, but I don't think we can ever be 100% sure of it. Abstinence and periodic abstinence come with great responsibility. The natural, normal state of marriage is a procreative one, and Catholics are called to lovingly accept children from God. They are His gifts to us. If a couple has a serious reason to avoid (and the Church, in her great wisdom, does not define "serious" because each couple's circumstances will be different), they can feel at ease in their decision to avoid pregnancy. But the reason must be serious. For example, limiting births because of a desire to go on lavish family vacations five times a year would not be "serious" in the way that limiting births because of a wife's heart condition would be.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not to mention, I don't buy the "sex is for procreation, and procreation is from sex...only" notion.

I agree with you. Sex is not solely for procreation. It also serves a second, equally important function: Unification (bonding) of spouses.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Vice versa, to claim that sex is only for breeding is like saying walking is only for transportation purposes - that it's immoral to take walks for pleasure.

I never claimed that, so I have no idea where you're getting this from? Did I miss a post from someone else?

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not to mention, if the pleasure of sex is supposed to be an incentive to create life, then you'd think he'd make the pregnancy/childbirth pleasant to provide incentive to actually maintain it.

I understand that many women are miserable during pregnancy and birth. Yet many of those same women choose to do it more than once.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	And don't start on me about that stupid bitch who gave Adam an apple.

You know, sometimes I really have no idea where this hostility comes from, when it's being directed at me. I thought I was being calm, personable, and informative.

	Originally Posted by Allie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Contraception is not the same as birth control; yet, abstinence (natural contraception) "is permitted to control births"?

Abstinence is not "natural contraception." Abstinence is not having sex. I'm not engaging in contraception because I'm not having sex with my husband every hour on the hour, every day.

Contraception alters the sex act, depriving it of at least one of its two functions (procreative and unitive). Abstinence does not alter the sex act (there's nothing to alter, since sex isn't being engaged in).

	Originally Posted by Allie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The only and slightest distinction that can be made are that contraception is one of the methods of birth control, but it is still a tool to control birth; hence birth control. Abortion is another tool used to control birth; hence birth control.

I agree. Birth control comes in three forms: Abstinence (whether total or periodic), contraception (withdrawal, condoms, pills, IUDs, sterilization, etc.), and abortion. The only morally acceptable form is abstinence (again, complete or periodic based on a woman's cycle). That's all I'm saying.

	Originally Posted by Allie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That is the formal version of it. The other is that the church/religion requires followers/births. The more religious members, the more powerful the religion and its leaders. Without the continuing and growing members to reinforce its authority, that religion/religious leaders would wither and die --- that is my version of it.

And that's certainly your prerogative. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. A previous poster brought up my faith, and so I'm explaining it. I know most people don't like it.

	Originally Posted by Allie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If "anything that intentionally prevents implantation of a newly conceived child is abortive", then abstinence (see your statements above) is also abortive, as it is used to prevent implantation of a newly conceived child....

I can't conceive a child if I am abstinent. Therefore, I can't prevent the non-existent child from implanting. (I can't abort something that isn't there.) If a child is conceived, and I do something to prevent this child from implanting, then I have aborted an existing life. Must I really explain the difference here?

Sigh.

I totally regret that I am not communicating as clearly or as effectively as I want. I hope I'm making sense to somebody, LOL. (If I'm not making sense to anyone, then maybe I should just leave the thread? I don't want to confuse/irritate/insult anyone.)

[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by SacrificialLove To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	maybe I should just leave the thread?

That would be immoral.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[MartinH]

Goodness me.

I thought this was a historical artefact of the RCC attempting to win through weight of numbers over other versions, by ensuring their adherents had bigger families than the Protestants.

I though Monty Python covered this fully ages ago.

Or are there some things that RCC teaches are immoral that don't benefit it, either now or in the past?

[SacrificialLove]

	Originally Posted by MartinH To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Goodness me. I thought this was a historical artefact of the RCC attempting to win through weight of numbers over other versions, by ensuring their adherents had bigger families than the Protestants.

Oh, no no no. We had this theology waaaaaaaay before the Protestants split off and started doing their own thing, LOL. We aren't competing with Prots. We're competing with Pagans.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[sircockburn]

	Originally Posted by SacrificialLove To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm answering everything from a faithful Catholic's point of view, so I hope I don't have to constantly qualify my statements, LOL. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. We can't "know" God's will. We can try to find it, but I don't think we can ever be 100% sure of it.

But then how would you determine this:

	If I contracept, I am basically telling God that I know better than He does. I am trying to reject His role as Creator.

He's not going to "create" by accident, I presume?

Abstinence and periodic abstinence come with great responsibility. The natural, normal state of marriage is a procreative one, and Catholics are called to lovingly accept children from God. They are His gifts to us.[/quote]

Again, there's that assumption about what his intentions supposedly are (ie, exerting his will).

If a couple has a serious reason to avoid (and the Church, in her great wisdom, does not define "serious" because each couple's circumstances will be different), they can feel at ease in their decision to avoid pregnancy. But the reason must be serious. For example, limiting births because of a desire to go on lavish family vacations five times a year would not be "serious" in the way that limiting births because of a wife's heart condition would be.

Without defining "serious", how can you claim that vacation deprivation isn't a valid reason to forgo the babies? I'm not being a smartass, I'm serious.

	I agree with you. Sex is not solely for procreation. It also serves a second, equally important function: Unification (bonding) of spouses.

Never mind pleasure, of course. <--- That...is sarcasm.

	I never claimed that, so I have no idea where you're getting this from? Did I miss a post from someone else?

If sex for a reason other than procreation (not in addition to procreation...I mean IN PLACE of procreation) was OK, then why is abstinence acceptable, but not contraception? Theoretically, people should obey their horny desires at all times, because that's will lead people to have sex, and the creation of babies. But if people are avoiding the "calls" for sex just to avoid getting pregnant, then they're still saying "no" to God.

So by permitting saying "no" to God/nature only if you also say "no" to sex, you're implying that you can't have sex without (risking) procreation.

	I understand that many women are miserable during pregnancy and birth. Yet many of those same women choose to do it more than once.

The end result God presumably wants: girl craps out a (live) baby.
Make sex pleasurable --> girl starts process of hatching baby --> closer to end result.
Make pregnancy and labor a bitch --> girl wants to end that shit, pronto ---> game over. Girl craps out dead baby. Girl wisens up and takes contraception, or repeats this process all over again.

Well, we have a problem here, don't we? It's like giving a kid money to encourage him to do chores, and then when he does them, scream at him like a violent ape the entire time. A bit inconsistent, yeah?

	You know, sometimes I really have no idea where this hostility comes from, when it's being directed at me. I thought I was being calm, personable, and informative.

Oh shit, that's right...you're an ENFJ. Sorry. I wasn't trying to be hostile, sometimes I just word things with a "bite" if I don't pay attention to whether I'm dealing with sensitive people.

	Therefore, I can't prevent the non-existent child from implanting. (I can't abort something that isn't there.) If a child is conceived, and I do something to prevent this child from implanting, then I have aborted an existing life. Must I really explain the difference here?

Then what's the difference between abstinence and between using either condoms or withdrawal?

Sperms are not children. You have it backwards. For a baby to be conceived, that sperm *first* must fertilize the egg. Only after the egg is actually fertilized, can actions against that fertilized hybrid egg be considered "abortive." Most CONTRACEPTIVES prevent the fertilization from ever taking place as much as intentionally abstaining does.

You can't abort a non-existent baby.

[nowt]

I've never seen birth control sin. I doubt it has a soul.

*

Oh, the use of!

Only without consent.

[sircockburn]

	Originally Posted by nowt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've never seen birth control sin. I doubt it has a soul. * Oh, the use of! Only without consent.

Actually, I think it refers to our having sinned by manipulating our timing of exit out of mom's vag.

[SacrificialLove]

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He's not going to "create" by accident, I presume?

You are correct; He doesn't create by accident. Catholic teaching states that sex is holy. It is a glorious act that God invented to create life. Misusing the act is immoral, because it was designed a certain way, with specific purposes.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again, there's that assumption about what his intentions supposedly are (ie, exerting his will).

Drawing logical conclusions based on Natural Law (i.e., sex = babies) is a fairly safe way of determining His intent.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Without defining "serious", how can you claim that vacation deprivation isn't a valid reason to forgo the babies? I'm not being a smartass, I'm serious.

Doing things like giving of ourselves, making sacrifices, and rejecting materialism, we grow in holiness. Growing in holiness and nurturing our relationship with God should be our first priority. Children, by their very natures, encourage us to give, sacrifice, and allocate our resources differently; they help us on our path to Heaven. Going on vacations, for example, doesn't require the same level of selflessness and sacrifice.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Never mind pleasure, of course. <--- That...is sarcasm.

Pleasure is very important!!! It's crucial to sex's unitive component. Pope John Paul II wrote extensively on husband/wife relationships, and one of the things he stressed was the importance of a husband ensuring that his wife found sex pleasurable. Basically, it's a man's responsibility to help his wife achieve orgasm. Mutual climax unifies and bonds a couple, and is a great marriage strengthener.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If sex for a reason other than procreation (not in addition to procreation...I mean IN PLACE of procreation) was OK, then why is abstinence acceptable, but not contraception?

I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your meaning, here. Sex has two equally important components: Unification of spouses and Procreation. They cannot be divorced. To divorce them is to misuse the way God designed sex to work. Abstinence and periodic abstinence is an acceptable way to space babies because it does not alter the sex act. Contraception alters the act, depriving sex of its procreative component. Abstinence results in not having babies, as well, so I can see why people would say, "Why does it matter?" What it basically boils down to is this: There are "right" and "wrong" ways of doing various things. Acquiring money by working for it is "right." Stealing it is "wrong." The ends do not justify the means... The way you go about doing something matters, not just the end result.

And to further complicate this mess, LOL, a couple can abuse abstinence, as well. Taking the earlier vacation example, it would not be considered a wise/selfless use of periodic abstinence to avoid pregnancy if the main motivation was to keep the five-vacations-per-year quota at the expense of having another baby.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Theoretically, people should obey their horny desires at all times, because that's will lead people to have sex, and the creation of babies.

Not necessarily. "Responsible parenthood" is very important. If a couple cannot afford to feed another baby, or cannot emotionally handle another baby, or their current children will gravely suffer if another baby comes into the family, or any number of other things, they may have to control themselves and avoid having sex (either entirely or periodically, whichever is mutually agreed upon).

I'll share my personal example here. I have three young children, ages 6 and under, all of whom are Autistic. Parenting is very challenging for my husband and me at this time -- Three children to diaper, two children to breastfeed, limited communicative ability, family income went from $80k/year to $27k/year in 2011, etc. We have determined that currently, it is wise to avoid pregnancy for now. Not for ever, but for now.

We don't know what the future holds, so it is quite possible that at some point, we will start feeling a pull for another child, or feel less overwhelmed with our current situation, or whatever. Until that time comes, we monitor my fertility, and have sex accordingly. And it's very difficult at times. Abstinence is supposed to be difficult, because it really forces you to look at your situation and say, "Are my reasons for avoiding pregnancy valid? Are they really that important?" It's a constant process of self evaluation and reflection.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But if people are avoiding the "calls" for sex just to avoid getting pregnant, then they're still saying "no" to God.

You are correct. And it's something that we should be aware of and guard against. That's why it's important to have a serious reason for avoiding pregnancy.

Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The end result God presumably wants: girl craps out a (live) baby. Make sex pleasurable --> girl starts process of hatching baby --> closer to end result. Make pregnancy and labor a bitch --> girl wants to end that shit, pronto ---> game over. Girl craps out dead baby. Girl wisens up and takes contraception, or repeats this process all over again. Well, we have a problem here, don't we? It's like giving a kid money to encourage him to do chores, and then when he does them, scream at him like a violent ape the entire time. A bit inconsistent, yeah?

Firstly, we cannot know for certain that God's intention is for every child to be born alive. So right there, I have to stop at the very beginning of your scenario. As sad as that is for us, we simply do not know everyone's place in the universe. But it's not our duty to determine that, it's His.

That said, we all die at different times, for different reasons. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with God's will (i.e., if someone shoots me and kills me, it wasn't God's will that I die, it was another person's sinful actions that caused my death; God simply permitted nature to take its course by not intervening when my brain was blown out by a shotgun at point-blank range).

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Oh shit, that's right...you're an ENFJ. Sorry. I wasn't trying to be hostile, sometimes I just word things with a "bite" if I don't pay attention to whether I'm dealing with sensitive people.

It's okay. Thanks for clarifying.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Then what's the difference between abstinence and between using either condoms or withdrawal?

The difference between abstinence and condoms/withdrawal is that when a couple abstains, they are not altering the act of sex, itself. They are not divorcing the two essential components of intercourse, because no sex is being engaged in -- You can't alter what doesn't happen. When a couple uses condoms/withdrawal, they are "changing the rules" so to speak, and attempting to remove the natural consequences. They are withholding their fertility, which violates the requirement that sex be both procreative and unitive.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Sperms are not children. You have it backwards.

You are correct; I never claimed they were.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	For a baby to be conceived, that sperm *first* must fertilize the egg. Only after the egg is actually fertilized, can actions against that fertilized hybrid egg be considered "abortive."

I apologize if I didn't make my knowledge of this clear; I'm fully aware of this. How was my statement indicative of anything to the contrary? I said, "If a child is conceived, and I do something to prevent this child from implanting, then I have aborted an existing life." Any number of contraceptive methods do exactly this. Birth control pills/hormone injections can do it (read the insert, it specifically says that the pill can make the uterine lining hostile to implantation -- meaning, the child is aborted), and preventing implantation was the very specific design of the IUD.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Most CONTRACEPTIVES prevent the fertilization from ever taking place as much as intentionally abstaining does.

Only barrier methods of artificial birth control, like condoms, attempt to prevent fertilization as their sole method of controlling births. Female hormonal contraception attempts to prevent ovulation, but it also utilizes the "backup" method of suppressing proper development of the uterine lining. It's this second function of hormonal birth control that is abortive.

	Originally Posted by sircockburn To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You can't abort a non-existent baby.

That's exactly what I said; I'm glad we at least agree on this point.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Allie]

	Originally Posted by SacrificialLove To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm answering everything from a faithful Catholic's point of view, so I hope I don't have to constantly qualify my statements, LOL. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

No problem with that. I am challenging your views, from various angles, just as I expect anyone else to challenge mine, at any given time. One of the things I challenge here is the lack of consistencies....Take things apart and all that.

First, definitions of contraception:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Abstinence is not "natural contraception." Abstinence is not having sex. I'm not engaging in contraception because I'm not having sex with my husband every hour on the hour, every day. Contraception alters the sex act, depriving it of at least one of its two functions (procreative and unitive). Abstinence does not alter the sex act (there's nothing to alter, since sex isn't being engaged in).

But, when you abstain from sex during ovulation (part of the calendar based/rhythm method), with the intention of preventing pregnancy/conception, then abstinence is not just about the sex act...or lack thereof...but as a means of preventing conception; thus, contra-[against]-ception.

	I agree. Birth control comes in three forms: Abstinence (whether total or periodic), contraception (withdrawal, condoms, pills, IUDs, sterilization, etc.), and abortion. The only morally acceptable form is abstinence (again, complete or periodic based on a woman's cycle). That's all I'm saying.

See definition above. As long as abstinence is used with the intention of preventing pregnancy, it is a "natural" form of contraception.

	And that's certainly your prerogative. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. A previous poster brought up my faith, and so I'm explaining it. I know most people don't like it.

Like or dislike is irrelevant here, for me. I was proposing another view.

	I can't conceive a child if I am abstinent. Therefore, I can't prevent the non-existent child from implanting. (I can't abort something that isn't there.) If a child is conceived, and I do something to prevent this child from implanting, then I have aborted an existing life. Must I really explain the difference here?

That was another inconsistency I pointed out, based on your definition:

	Originally Posted by SacrificialLove
	Anything (herbs, pills, IUDs, whatever) that intentionally prevents implantation of a newly conceived child is abortive.

Abstaining from sex during ovulation IS for the purpose and intention of preventing conception, therefore, it is abortive based on your definition.

You (the church/whatever) is trying very hard to justify abstinence as the moral choice over all other methods of contraception/birth control; so, the definitions and meanings are being stretched in various ways to try to differentiate it....and end up with inconsistences, since there are really no differences, however you want to reword them. The intention is the common denominator.

	Sigh. I totally regret that I am not communicating as clearly or as effectively as I want. I hope I'm making sense to somebody, LOL. (If I'm not making sense to anyone, then maybe I should just leave the thread? I don't want to confuse/irritate/insult anyone.)

I understand what you are communicating here. When I do not, I would ask for clarifications.

[Midhiel]

SacrificialLove, I'd just like to say that I understand what you're trying to explain and I appreciate that you are taking the time to do it calmly and without using offensive language. It's sadly rare, in my personal experience, for a religious person to be able to communicate their beliefs in a way that doesn't piss everyone else off.

I do disagree, however, about contraception. I feel that, as long as an egg has not been fully prepared to become a child, that there is nothing wrong with preventing pregnancy; I actually think it is preferable in many, if not most, cases. But I do disagree wholeheartedly with abortion, both as a spiritual person and as a human being. Even though I can acknowledge the fact that we as a species reproduce far too much, I can't condone killing a fetus to try to fix that. It would be better, in my opinion, never to conceive it in the first place - hence contraception.

I do have a question, though, and if you're able to answer it I'd be very interested in what you have to say. I've been on the pill since I was eleven years old, for medical reasons. I'm a virgin and don't plan to ever engage in promiscuous sex, or sex outside of marriage (assuming I get married). But I have to stay on the pill in order to stay alive. What's the Church's stance on that, and what's yours, if you don't mind sharing your opinion? I know other young women who are on the pill for medical reasons and not strictly for birth control. If I had not been put on the pill, I definitely would have died, so keeping it readily available is rather important to me.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[sehnsucht]

Using birth control is not immoral, IMHO. If "keeping chaste" is not a big priority, then I think contraception is the smart and responsible thing to do!

[LizzyGirl]

Gonna go with no.

[Satyagrahi]

It all depends on your conditioning. If you are conditioned by religious dogma to believe birth control is immoral then you will see the world through that filter.

[SacrificialLove]

	Originally Posted by Allie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	First, definitions of contraception:[...]

As is typically the case, definitions are fluid and variable. I am working from the following definition (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
; emphasis mine):

"In order to discuss the morality of a thing, we must first define it. Contraception, from the Latin contra (against) and conceptio (to conceive), literally means “against conception.” It may be defined as “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (HV 14). Simply put, contraception is any intentional attempt to render the conjugal act infertile.

[...]

Contraception or contraceptive intercourse therefore is not identical in meaning with birth control or family planning. Plainly there are other ways to control births and to plan one’s family than by engaging in contraceptive intercourse. One can control or prevent births by means far worse than contraception – by abortion, for instance. And one can plan one’s family by means that are in themselves thoroughly good – that is, by Natural Family Planning.

[...]

Note that in this definition contraception is not regarded as a classification of things alone that act against conception, but that it extends to the broader consideration of action, that is, a choice or act of the will against the natural fertility of sex.

[...]

Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not oppose artificial birth control because it’s artificial. She opposes it because it’s contraceptive. Contraception is the choice by any means to impede the procreative potential of a given act of intercourse. In other words, the contracepting couple chooses to engage in intercourse, and, foreseeing that their act may result in a new life, they intentionally and willfully suppress their fertility."

	Originally Posted by Allie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Abstaining from sex during ovulation IS for the purpose and intention of preventing conception, therefore, it is abortive based on your definition.

"Abortive" is preventing implantation, not conception. My post was clear about this important distinction: "Anything (herbs, pills, IUDs, whatever) that intentionally prevents implantation of a newly conceived child is abortive."

As I have said before, preventing conception is not abortive; preventing implantation is abortive, because an egg or sperm alone is not a person, but a person instantly results from an egg/sperm union.

	Originally Posted by Allie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The intention is the common denominator.

By this logic, the intention of acquiring a child is the common denominator between the woman who has sex with her husband, and the woman who slices open the uterus of a pregnant mom to take her child. Intent is the same: Get a baby. Methods are different, with the first being morally acceptable and the other being completely and utterly awful.

	Originally Posted by Midhiel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	SacrificialLove, I'd just like to say that I understand what you're trying to explain and I appreciate that you are taking the time to do it calmly and without using offensive language. It's sadly rare, in my personal experience, for a religious person to be able to communicate their beliefs in a way that doesn't piss everyone else off.

Thank you.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You are the second person from this thread to say this to me. It gives me strength to continue. I keep thinking that I'm done with the thread, because it didn't seem like I was communicating very well, and I hate arguing in circles.

	Originally Posted by Midhiel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I do disagree, however, about contraception. I feel that, as long as an egg has not been fully prepared to become a child, that there is nothing wrong with preventing pregnancy; I actually think it is preferable in many, if not most, cases.

I can totally see that perspective. I'm an adult convert to the faith (converted from "nothing" -- and both of my parents are pro-choice), and I carefully analyzed several things before I committed myself to the Catholic Church. If that's even worth mentioning, LOL.

	Originally Posted by Midhiel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But I do disagree wholeheartedly with abortion, both as a spiritual person and as a human being.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I'm 100% against abortion for any reason (surprise, surprise), so it's nice to hear when others share that sentiment. It's not that common.

	Originally Posted by Midhiel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've been on the pill since I was eleven years old, for medical reasons. I'm a virgin and don't plan to ever engage in promiscuous sex, or sex outside of marriage (assuming I get married). But I have to stay on the pill in order to stay alive. What's the Church's stance on that, and what's yours, if you don't mind sharing your opinion?

How about a primary source for this one? It's a good one (
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
):

"Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)"

If hormones/organ removal are used as a therapeutic means to cure a disease (or in your case, preserve your life), then they are completely acceptable to use. [Small clarification: If any sin is involved in this situation, it would be in "taking advantage of" the contraceptive side-effect of the treatment.] An important key is knowing if the medical reason is valid, and what other therapies/treatments are available (assuming an alternative exists). Like in the cases of Endometriosis, Poly-Cystic Ovarian Syndrome, etc., where the Pill doesn't actually cure the disease, it simply masks the symptoms -- Since effective alternative treatments are available, the Pill should not be used for these type of conditions. (I do not possess extensive knowledge in this area; I have been educated by NFP-only doctors and several Catholic women who have suffered from Endo and PCOS. So if there are crazy-extreme cases of either one that honestly and truly require the Pill, please, no one crucify me!!)

If I personally was in that situation, I would get several different opinions from solid Catholic doctors who only included Natural Family Planning in their practices. I am unaware of a medical condition that requires the birth control pill as a cure (not simply a mask of symptoms, but a cure) or as a life preserver, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I certainly don't know everything, LOL.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Whew!!! Y'all are seriously dissecting the heck out of me -- I have to wait until all of my kiddos are asleep before I even venture back into this thread because it's so time-intensive and thought-provoking. Feels good!

[Midhiel]

	Originally Posted by SacrificialLove To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	"Lawful Therapeutic Means 15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. (19)"

I see. So working with this system of morality, birth control should not be illegal, but controlled? If proponents of this ideology would support that belief rather than the currently popularized "make birth control illegal", people probably would not be quite so angry.

	Originally Posted by SacrificialLove To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I am unaware of a medical condition that requires the birth control pill as a cure (not simply a mask of symptoms, but a cure) or as a life preserver, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Without going too much into gruesome detail, my only other options, as far as I am aware, are a hysterectomy or bleeding to death. Given a choice between the three, I would definitely opt for medication - none of the three is very conducive to childbearing!
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


On another point, by the by - I agree that religious institutions should not be legally forced to provide coverage for birth control. In other institutions, yes, I think providing that coverage would be for the best; but I think the First Amendment should release any religious institution from that obligation.

[Allie]

Originally Posted by SacrificialLove To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As is typically the case, definitions are fluid and variable. I am working from the following definition ( To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ; emphasis mine): "In order to discuss the morality of a thing, we must first define it. Contraception, from the Latin contra (against) and conceptio (to conceive), literally means “against conception.” It may be defined as “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (HV 14). Simply put, contraception is any intentional attempt to render the conjugal act infertile. [...] Contraception or contraceptive intercourse therefore is not identical in meaning with birth control or family planning. Plainly there are other ways to control births and to plan one’s family than by engaging in contraceptive intercourse. One can control or prevent births by means far worse than contraception – by abortion, for instance. And one can plan one’s family by means that are in themselves thoroughly good – that is, by Natural Family Planning. [...] Note that in this definition contraception is not regarded as a classification of things alone that act against conception, but that it extends to the broader consideration of action, that is, a choice or act of the will against the natural fertility of sex. [...] Contrary to popular belief, the Church does not oppose artificial birth control because it’s artificial. She opposes it because it’s contraceptive. Contraception is the choice by any means to impede the procreative potential of a given act of intercourse. In other words, the contracepting couple chooses to engage in intercourse, and, foreseeing that their act may result in a new life, they intentionally and willfully suppress their fertility."

The above is supposed to distinguish between contraception from birth control and abstinence from contraception? It is basically supporting the points I already made, emphasized even! Willful---intentional---deliberate choices and actions against natural fertility of sex.... "against conception".

Example/scenario: Say a couple engages in sex daily/weekly/whenever, but then, abstains during her ovulation to prevent conception, and then resumes thereafter. THAT is "a choice or act of the will against the natural fertility of sex" and "...foreseeing that their act may result in a new life, they intentionally and willfully suppress their fertility." This is no different than having sex and then stop/or withdraw at the moment of ejeculation (coitus interruptus). Both are willful---intentional---deliberate acts to stop fertility, whether a day or days ahead, or just moments away from ejeculation.

Otherwise, they would have chosen to continue engaging in sex/ejeculate as the norm, regardless of pregnancy or no pregnancy---this would be FOR "...the natural fertility of sex". They would Be Fruitful and Multiply and Fill the Earth.

So, why is one moral and the other immoral?

"Abortive" is preventing implantation, not conception. My post was clear about this important distinction: "Anything (herbs, pills, IUDs, whatever) that intentionally prevents implantation of a newly conceived child is abortive." As I have said before, preventing conception is not abortive; preventing implantation is abortive, because an egg or sperm alone is not a person, but a person instantly results from an egg/sperm union.

Ah. I neglected the "conceived child/person" part.

Let's go with that. Conception vs implantation. But then, consider the above example/scenario. Abstaining from sex during ovulation, prevents conception and not implantation. Coitus interruptus also prevents conception and not implantation. In short, both are basically the same willful/intentional/deliberate acts "against conception". Why is the former moral and the latter immoral again?

	By this logic, the intention of acquiring a child is the common denominator between the woman who has sex with her husband, and the woman who slices open the uterus of a pregnant mom to take her child. Intent is the same: Get a baby. Methods are different, with the first being morally acceptable and the other being completely and utterly awful.

Context (intention/willful/deliberate as related to abstinence vs coitus interruptus...contraception vs birth control...), and obviously, with what one woman does with her own body vs a woman violating another woman's body. See above and prior posts again if that helps.

[SacrificialLove]

	Originally Posted by Midhiel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I see. So working with this system of morality, birth control should not be illegal, but controlled? If proponents of this ideology would support that belief rather than the currently popularized "make birth control illegal", people probably would not be quite so angry.

I actually don't believe that the government has any business in it, at all. I think codifying my faith into law would be terribly problematic, because I don't agree with the use of force. And governments do an awful lot of forcing. Many other faithful Catholics disagree with me, and I often butt heads with them over this issue.

	Originally Posted by Midhiel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Without going too much into gruesome detail, my only other options, as far as I am aware, are a hysterectomy or bleeding to death. Given a choice between the three, I would definitely opt for medication - none of the three is very conducive to childbearing!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I can't even imagine.

So, in your case, hormonal treatment is not only preserving your life, but also your fertility (since you are able to retain all of your reproductive organs, thereby making a future pregnancy at least slightly possible). I'd say you are definitely outside of any moral wrongdoing, for sure.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

	Originally Posted by Midhiel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	On another point, by the by - I agree that religious institutions should not be legally forced to provide coverage for birth control. In other institutions, yes, I think providing that coverage would be for the best; but I think the First Amendment should release any religious institution from that obligation.

You know, I get the impression that even most U.S. Catholics don't think this way.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Kinda sad. Actually, I don't believe anyone should be forced to provide (or purchase) anything they don't want (I don't think taxes are ethical, either...), but all of that is definitely for another thread.

	Originally Posted by Allie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The above is supposed to distinguish between contraception from birth control and abstinence from contraception? It is basically supporting the points I already made, emphasized even! Willful---intentional---deliberate choices and actions against natural fertility of sex.... "against conception".

Sigh.

I'm really sorry I couldn't explain this very well. I'm beginning to get a little frustrated, because I can't think of any other way to phrase it. I don't even know if what I'm about to say will clarify my position or not. If not, then I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I feel like I've made this argument five or six times already, and I'm growing tired of repeating myself, LOL.

Okay.

If someone is not having sex, they are not acting against the natural fertility of sex. There is simply no act of intercourse to act against; the intercourse is non-existent, so it's not possible to alter it. Something that doesn't exist can't be modified or changed.

	Originally Posted by Allie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Example/scenario: Say a couple engages in sex daily/weekly/whenever, but then, abstains during her ovulation to prevent conception, and then resumes thereafter. THAT is "a choice or act of the will against the natural fertility of sex" and "...foreseeing that their act may result in a new life, they intentionally and willfully suppress their fertility."

No, it isn't. They are respecting the design of the woman's body and fertility, and timing intercourse accordingly. They are not suppressing their fertility at all; I honestly have no idea how abstaining is "suppressing" fertility -- That would mean that all fertile virgin women between the times of menarche and completion of menopause were suppressing their fertility. I admit that logic isn't my forte, being ENFJ and all
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, but that seriously makes no sense to me.

	Originally Posted by Allie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is no different than having sex and then stop/or withdraw at the moment of ejeculation (coitus interruptus). Both are willful---intentional---deliberate acts to stop fertility, whether a day or days ahead, or just moments away from ejeculation.

Again, I have to disagree. Not having sex, and altering the sex act to remove fertility, are two very different things. Abstinence respects the natural order of things and contraception does not. The latter removes the natural, logical consequences of intercourse. The former does not.

	Originally Posted by Allie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Abstaining from sex during ovulation, prevents conception and not implantation.

Which qualifies it as birth control. And like I stated earlier, the Church is not against birth control, she is against contraception. (Both of the links I supplied in post #64 explain this quite well. At least they do to me, LOL.)

	Originally Posted by Allie To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Coitus interruptus also prevents conception and not implantation.

Yes. Withdrawal alters the sex act, suppresses fertility, and attempts to remove the natural consequences of intercourse. Therefore it is immoral. Despite its immorality as contraception, it's obviously not nearly as bad as aborting the baby.

I hope I've been able to clarify my stance on this whole issue. If not, then like I mentioned toward the beginning of this post, we may have to declare a stalemate and move on. I'm not particularly fond of circles, they make me dizzy.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


If you'd like to have "the last word," I have no problem granting it. I think I've made my case as best as I possibly can. It kinda sucks that it feels like I didn't do a very good job, but oh, well. If I've clarified anything to anyone (even a random lurker who will never post), then I can be happy with that.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[MissionPossible]

Depends on your morals. According to the morals I live by, birth control by reasonably healthy and feasible methods (I do include contraceptives, abstinence, and abortion), are certainly part of a constructive way of living in terms of the big picture. It is not necessary to over populate the earth and strain its resources, nor is it necessary to live without a healthy and rewarding amount of good sex.

Of course, many might disagree with me, but to each his own.

[VENUS 2020]

	Originally Posted by plotthickens To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Depends on one's morals.

^This. After reading through this thread I would have to go with the above answer. Contraception is immoral for those who have chosen to subscribe to the Catholic faith and other forms religion that share their view. Otherwise it's a healthy and intelligent option for people who do not wish to have children. I believe its immoral and irresponsible to bring children into to the world when one is unable or unwilling to care for them.

I also believe the distinction between contraception and abstinence is a nonsense. Especially when both are employed for the same reason - to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

[Seablue]

Now just to be clear, I'm not religious and do not think birth control is immoral in any way.

But to those who say contraception and abstinence are the same thing, SacrificialLove already asked : should you, then, if you're against contraception, have sex with your spouse 24/7 ?

For abstinence between spouse to be considered as an illegitimate way to prevent births, you would have to somehow determine that the "conjugal act" should be performed a certain number of time every month. But as long as a Church don't state (for instance) that "married couples should have sex at least twice a week", then it's up to the couple to decide how often they have sex, even if that's never, and it's completely different from having sex while being on the pill.

Like I said, these morals are completely foreign to me, but I don't see what's so difficult to grasp.

Though I admit that the idea of religious people having sex several times on "safe" weeks but carefully avoiding fertile weeks, and being against contraception, brings a smile to my lips.

[VENUS 2020]

Abstinence is perhaps the first form of contraception used by any intelligent teen. Don't wanna become pregnant, don't have sex. Simple. To counter this with "no one has sex with their spouse 24/7" is nonsense. Guys don't walk around wearing condoms 24/7. that doesn't make the condom any less a contraception. The point is that abstinence IS being actively used to prevent pregnancy. A fertile woman who chooses not to have sex - even though she might have a desire to do so - is engaging a form of contraception.

I must ask though - If an unattached woman during her fertile days is feeling horny but does not engage in sex with the nearest available male, is she not denying God's purpose by deliberately not answering his call to procreate. Can this be considered immoral? Yeah, I know, more nonsense.

[Equinox]

I'm not Catholic, but I think birth control is immoral. Ever heard the expression "you do the crime, you pay the fine/do the time"? It's true here. If you don't want kids, don't fool around in the first place.

Obvious counter-argument: "It's my body, I do what I want" or "But I want to do what I want without consequences!"

Counter to the counter-argument: Yes, it is your body and your decision, so that means you should deal with it. If you're so hedonistic that you're going to fool around, you need to take the responsibilities that go along with it. Also, you're not entitled to happiness or pleasure, and if you do happen to find an opportunity, it's not without consequences.

A world without consequences is a world of chaos, selfishness, and immorality.

[Allie]

Originally Posted by SacrificialLove To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Sigh. I'm really sorry I couldn't explain this very well. I'm beginning to get a little frustrated, because I can't think of any other way to phrase it. I don't even know if what I'm about to say will clarify my position or not. If not, then I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I feel like I've made this argument five or six times already, and I'm growing tired of repeating myself, LOL. Okay. If someone is not having sex, they are not acting against the natural fertility of sex. There is simply no act of intercourse to act against; the intercourse is non-existent, so it's not possible to alter it. Something that doesn't exist can't be modified or changed. No, it isn't. They are respecting the design of the woman's body and fertility, and timing intercourse accordingly. They are not suppressing their fertility at all; I honestly have no idea how abstaining is "suppressing" fertility -- That would mean that all fertile virgin women between the times of menarche and completion of menopause were suppressing their fertility. I admit that logic isn't my forte, being ENFJ and all To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , but that seriously makes no sense to me. Again, I have to disagree. Not having sex, and altering the sex act to remove fertility, are two very different things. Abstinence respects the natural order of things and contraception does not. The latter removes the natural, logical consequences of intercourse. The former does not. Which qualifies it as birth control. And like I stated earlier, the Church is not against birth control, she is against contraception. (Both of the links I supplied in post #64 explain this quite well. At least they do to me, LOL.) Yes. Withdrawal alters the sex act, suppresses fertility, and attempts to remove the natural consequences of intercourse. Therefore it is immoral. Despite its immorality as contraception, it's obviously not nearly as bad as aborting the baby. I hope I've been able to clarify my stance on this whole issue. If not, then like I mentioned toward the beginning of this post, we may have to declare a stalemate and move on. I'm not particularly fond of circles, they make me dizzy. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. If you'd like to have "the last word," I have no problem granting it. I think I've made my case as best as I possibly can. It kinda sucks that it feels like I didn't do a very good job, but oh, well. If I've clarified anything to anyone (even a random lurker who will never post), then I can be happy with that. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Here is where I was/am coming from, in its entirety, to provide a whole picture:

1. The church tries to accomodate the changing needs and demands of its members, on the strict definition of sex, as the purpose of procreation only, rather than recreation/pleasure. However, doing so wholesale would also endorse other "deviant" sex acts (for pleasure only such as masturbation/ect.) that the church/bible has forbidden and deem as immoral. So, they have to find the line where it would achieve the goal of contraception, but at the same time, not supportive of all other sex acts as well. This is the foundation for their rationale...


2. Abstinence vs coitus interruptus (withdrawal) - I get where you are coming from regarding "not having sex" and withdrawal during "intercourse". The problem with your approach is that you are trying to draw a philosophical difference between "having sex" and actual "intercourse".

a. Abstinence during ovulation, used to avoid conception/pregnancy, involves engaging in sex. Engaging in sex or having sex, includes intercourse (NOT abstinence) and then stopping and suppressing fertility (abstain) from sex...meaning stop sexual intercourse to avoid pregnancy. Without having sexual intercourse first, there would be nothing to abstain from to avoid conception. If you are a practicing Catholic, sex and intercourse are mutually inclusive. So, sex IS intercourse. So stop having sex (intercourse) is no different than withdrawal during intercourse to avoid conception.

b. The reason the church tries to draw a distinction with withdrawal, is because of its similarities to other "deviant" sex 1) by ejeculating outside of the vagina and 2) reinforcing the idea of sex as pleasure only. If the church condones withdrawal as moral, then it is also condoning masturbation/homosexuality/non-conjugal sex as moral.

Therefore, withdrawal is considered immoral, not because it is contraception (since abstaining from sexual intercourse during ovulation is also contraception), but because this is deemed as for pleasure only like other non-marital sexual relations. Yet, at the same time, it cannot emphasize its objection against pleasure in sex, since the idea of abstinence during ovulation, to avoid conception, is to allow pleasure with sex, and not just for procreation. See why this is so convoluted?

3. Abstinence vs contraception (including coitus interruptus) - Sexual abstinence refers to these various actions/intentions:

a. Abstain from sex due to fear of STDs. NOT contraception.
b. Abstain from sex due to purity/no sex before marriage/virginal. NOT contraception.
c. Abstain from casual sex due to lack of a long-term partner. NOT contraception.
d. Abstain from sex to avoid adultery/stay faithful. NOT contraception.
e. Abstain from sex (during ovulation) to avoid conception/pregnancy. CONTRACEPTION.

Therefore, abstinence during ovulation is used distinctly to stop/suppress conception/fertility; that is the intention, which defines it as contraception, and differentiates it from any other intentions/actions of abstinence, as listed above.

I stress the act of abstaining from sexual intercourse during ovulation because there is a difference between:

• The natural state of NOT having or engaging in sex/intercourse at all with anyone unintentional of conception/pregnancy (see a-d above)...and...
• STOP having sex/intercourse because a couple is intentionally avoiding pregnancy (see e above).

Hence, both are contraception. There is no getting around that, based on its intention in a conjugal/marital/sexual/ovulatory arena. Trying to lump "abstinence" as a whole on the one hand, and at the same time, trying to differentiate abstinence as a birth control method to avoid conception...AND then also trying to differentiate abstinence from contraception (I am not even going to mention coitus interruptus)...is like asking a person to turn left and right and front and back at the same time...AND then keep moving in those different directions...all at once. Not possible!


4. Abstinence vs Contraception vs Birth Control - No can do. I know what you said previously, but what you say, and what reality is, are 2 different things. These are not 3 separate and distinct categories, but are a direct subset of each other. Abstinence is contraception, which is birth control. In this case, imagine it this way:

There are 3 circles, inside one another.
The large circle on the outside is "Birth Control"
The middle circle on the inside of "Birth Control" is "Contraception"
The smallest circle on the inside of "Contraception" is "Abstinence"

[topquark]

Originally Posted by Equinox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm not Catholic, but I think birth control is immoral. Ever heard the expression "you do the crime, you pay the fine/do the time"? It's true here. If you don't want kids, don't fool around in the first place. Obvious counter-argument: "It's my body, I do what I want" or "But I want to do what I want without consequences!" Counter to the counter-argument: Yes, it is your body and your decision, so that means you should deal with it. If you're so hedonistic that you're going to fool around, you need to take the responsibilities that go along with it. Also, you're not entitled to happiness or pleasure, and if you do happen to find an opportunity, it's not without consequences. A world without consequences is a world of chaos, selfishness, and immorality.

I take it you don't agree with vaccinations either? Or seatbelts? Or pasteurization of food?

[Equinox]

	Originally Posted by topquark To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I take it you don't agree with vaccinations either? Or seatbelts? Or pasteurization of food?

None of those have to do with voluntary action. Vaccinations are for diseases that come and go unpredictably and in a way that is generally beyond human control. Seatbelts are a protective measure against physics working in ways we don't want it to and purely coincidental human errors while driving. The pasteurization of food protects against naturally occurring spoilage and pollution by bacteria, something we otherwise can't control.

Sex, on the other hand, is generally quite voluntary, and you know or should know exactly what you're getting into. It is not a requirement for human survival (the only requirements being food, water, protection from environmental conditions, and sanitation to stave off disease). You don't get pregnant because you caught a cold or someone accidentally bumped into you while you were walking down the road; you get pregnant because of voluntary actions.

And don't give me BS about how "I can't help myself" or "it's naturally part of everyone's life" or anything like that. I'm about 99% sure I'm going to be celibate for the rest of my life, the 1% being the highly unlikely event that I might get married. I would argue that it's not naturally part of everyone's life, and I definitely can help myself. Need proof? I'm proof.