by LauraLoo
A recent global study reveals young people are having more unprotected sex and know less about effective contraception options.
Below is a video promoting contraception. What are your impressions?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dsaVyl6cjU[/youtube]
Email LauraLoo with your Lunch Break suggestions.
[HT: Drudge Report]
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
When as a culture we’ve given up on inculcating virtue in our children, we’re left to resort to appealing to the vice of vanity in an attempt to control behavior we’re then shocked, shocked, to find them engaging in.
There’s a price to be paid for our idiocy, and ironically we engage in idiotic reactions instead of driving back to the root of the problem. Those who emphasize the latter are met with the typical “We don’t have time to do that, we have to be entirely in brush fire mode!”
Laissez faire libertines, negligent parents, degenerate pop culture, preposterous warehouse schools where social issues predominate in kids’ minds (rather than curriculum),ludicrous social policy and, yes, kid’s choices — are a bummer of a mix.
This ad made me so sad! As if the mere “saving grace” of contraception can create a dream-life! I had an un-planned pregnancy at 19 and, yet, getting pregnant was the LEAST of the problems that popped up because I chose to have sex outside of and before marriage! The focus needs to be on the reasons kids are engaging in pre-marital sex not how to prevent the “by-products” of pre-marital sex!
The message I got is that if you become pregnant, you’re just not “sexy” anymore. Note the contrast between the woman all decked out in her blue off-shoulder dress and the one without makeup in a flannel, unkempt hair, etc.
The idea is “having a baby makes you unhappy, unsexy, and frumpy. Pop that little Pill so you can stay hawt and you and your BF can go to all the parties you want.”
I know college aged women who have young children, and this message is way off base.
I find it interesting and ironic that the background music is the same music that is played in the Theology of the Body for Teens videos. Coincidence?
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to show the young lady popping the birth control pills later getting tested for a sexually transmitted disease with a positive result?
The message is that motherhood sucks and women should expect single motherhood as the default situation. The message is that men like you if you don’t have a baby. As soon as you have a baby, there will be no more male attention because no guy wants a woman with a baby, not even his own baby. If you want to please the guys, don’t have a baby. Don’t even want a baby. Take your pills. Be available. And remember, no babies. Men are fun. Babies are not.
Oooh!! Oooh!! I know how to fix this!! Pick me!! Pick me!!
::waves hands wildly::
MORE “safe sex” education. Start at younger and younger ages. MORE banana classes. MORE, MORE, MORE.
If the American Medical Association had come out with a new declaration that “cutting one’s forearms with razor blades is now classified as a non-deviant behaviour”, I don’t know if I’d be more appalled…
Contraception is forbidden by the Church. They should not be used by anyone.
Interesting use of light and color. Notice the dreary lighting with the pregnant teen struggling down the stairs contrasted with the bright day of the three girls climbing the stairs. Also notice the bright, sunny yellow of the teen snuggling her stuffed animal contrasted with the drab lack of color of the teen snuggling her baby.
But the beauty of that girl snuggling her precious baby and her gently touching her baby’s cheek while gazing down into her baby’s face (stop at the end of 0:18 to catch the gentle touch) just keeps grabbing my attention. That’s probably not what the makers of this ad wanted viewers to notice, but I just can’t help it. LIFE is beautiful.
Hippie, well said.
Lrning, nice observation.
Contraception is the doorway to abortion, and is one of the stalwarts of the culture of death. It can never be condoned.
I kind of agree with Lrning. I’m watching this and thinking “wait, is this for or against having a baby?” Meaningful life on one hand, shallow valip life on the other… I guess it’s so obvious that even the free love crowd can’t make their chosen life look better than it is. Of course my parents raised kids who actually wanted to grow up and be responsible adults, not perpetual adolescents.
They make babies look like burdens - like no mother can go to college – like she’s going to spend all of her nights inside, crying with her baby, in an over-sized white t-shirt instead of going out and dressing up. Yeah ok. Babies are a hand-full, yes….but there’s this thing called a baby-sitter. Babies are full of love!
What a vicious society we live in, where the whole world can burn if it makes you feel good. What emptiness our coming generations might have when they grow old, all alone, and look back on the course of their lives and wonder why they didn’t figure out what is meaningful in life and what isn’t…
Wait a second… did I see the word “responsibility” at the end of that video? That can’t be right… actions don’t have consequences and sex does not lead to pregnancy.
Where is the young man she so happily stands next to at the end in the alternate scenario? Where is the male responsibility? “Keep taking your pills, girls, because if you make a baby, its your problem.” That’s just one of the anti-women messages this video sends. I completely agree with hippie and Kels’ comments. Although I have no problem with contraception (unless it’s abortifacient), this video’s portrayal of what young parenthood is like is false and disgusting.
Here’s the real face of pregnancy and parenthood in college, and it’s much more cheerful:
http://youtu.be/XWxZQd9lMkQ
I became pregnant with my son during my first semester of college. He is 14 months old now, and I am still enrolled full time and pursuing my degree. This is womanhood. This is empowerment. Not a plastic case of chemical pills.
Contraception is good and important.
However, this ad accepts that the “normal” motherhood is single motherhood. The young mother is completely on her own without the assistance of a loving husband. The acceptance of single motherhood as the norm is sad for individual babies and devastating for society.
I’m not sure what point is made by the contrast between sleeping with a baby and sleeping with a teddy bear. What IS the point?
While the video is simplistic, the comments here reflect the anti-choice meme that girls who have sex before marriage are evil sluts and if they use birth control, they’re even worse – when, in reality, they’re being responsible for trying to avoid pregnancy if they don’t want it for whatever reason. Obviously, women can have babies and continue with college but it’s a lot harder for these women. Funny, according to the pro-life gospel, if a teen gets pregnant and has an abortion she’s either being coerced or just a dirty girl – but if she has sex and then has the baby, she’s a saint. Strange that…
“Funny, according to the pro-life gospel, if a teen has sex while using contraception, she’s a dirty girl – but if she has sex and then has the baby, she’s a saint. Strange that…”
Strange is right. Apparently I never read that “gospel”.
“Contraception is the doorway to abortion, and is one of the stalwarts of the culture of death. It can never be condoned.”
Let’s debate this again.
Hmm, some of the states with the lowest high school graduation rates also have some of the highest rates of teen pregnancy (and some of the most stringent abortion laws). Where are all the crisis pregnancy centers for girls who don’t give birth in a cloud of sunshine and flowers and bubbles and love????????!!
Hilary 5:47 PM
I became pregnant with my son during my first semester of college. He is 14 months old now, and I am still enrolled full time and pursuing my degree. This is womanhood. This is empowerment. Not a plastic case of chemical pills.
Amen!!!
Blessings to you and your son.
LL
I get the message they are trying to impart, that life is probably a bit better if you can prevent an unwanted pregnancy, but it is a shame that it portrays all unwanted pregnancies as causing gloom and doom. Many do, some don’t. Choice.
“Contraception is forbidden by the Church. They should not be used by anyone who believes in and adheres to what the Church says”- there, that’s more accurate.
CC: “Funny, according to the pro-life gospel, if a teen gets pregnant and has an abortion she’s either being coerced or just a dirty girl – but if she has sex and then has the baby, she’s a saint. Strange that…”
Lrning: “Strange is right. Apparently I never read that “gospel”.”
Neither did I, Lrning. They are not “dirty” girls, they just don’t know the truth about abortion.
““Contraception is the doorway to abortion, and is one of the stalwarts of the culture of death. It can never be condoned.”
Let’s debate this again. ”
LOL, Hal :)
What a vicious society we live in, where the whole world can burn if it makes you feel good. What emptiness our coming generations might have when they grow old, all alone, and look back on the course of their lives and wonder why they didn’t figure out what is meaningful in life and what isn’t…
Yes…but…but…they’ll have their stuffed animals…and their cats…
Hilary,
You’re video way outclasses that ad. All the best!
“Yes…but…but…they’ll have their stuffed animals…and their cats…”
Statistically middle aged childless women with cats miss more days of work per year on average than mothers of young children.
Still waiting for your response, Hal.
You can’t be pro-life and pro-contraception. It is nonsensical and irrational.
Hilary,
Thank you for sharing that video! Your son is absolutely adorable!
I gave you a like on youtube, too. :)
Even NFP Bruce? Or are we all just meant to function on the same level as rabbits?
Bruce: “You can’t be pro-life and pro-contraception. It is nonsensical and irrational.”
But, mirabile dictu, many users of contraception staff CPCs and are responsible for many women choosing life. Many others are responsible for electoral losses for pro-choice pols.
Would that there were more such non-pro-lifers busily caring for unborn life. :-/
It is not optimal for mother or child for the child to be born to a woman who is unmarried. If a young woman is going to have a particular sort of sexual activity, she should responsibly use contraception if she is single.
Hilary, awesome video!
Even NFP Bruce? Or are we all just meant to function on the same level as rabbits?
Nah, humans are intelligent and can make calculated choices. Humans can choose not to have sex. Rabbits are pretty much locked into instinct.
Let’s not argue this again, folks. It goes nowhere, only REALLY slowly.
So it’s like commuting in Chicago?
Well I could just stay home then, and have about as much fun here. ;-)
Rasqual wrote:
So it’s like commuting in Chicago?
:) Why do you always seem to come up with the comments that I wish I’d said, myself?
Hippie wrote:
Statistically middle aged childless women with cats miss more days of work per year on average than mothers of young children.
Well-lll… to be fair (as a kitty owner), it’s not always due to personal illness; veterinarians aren’t often open (for non-emergency cases) on weekends. :)
You can’t be pro-life and pro-contraception. Why avoid the argument, when you know (deep down) that it is true? The one has naturally led to the other, and the mindset of the contraception matches the mindset of abortion. Sex is for fun and children are nothing but a commodity.
In other words, those who claim to be “pro-life” actually hold something very strongly in common with Planned Parenthood – pro-contraception. Is that the company you want to keep? Do you want Cecil Richards as a part of your marriage and in your bedroom? If you support contraception, you support Planned Parenthood and Cecil Richards. Simple as that.
Better start thinking about it.
You can’t be pro-life and pro-contraception.
Bruce, anyone on this board can tell you that I’m adamantly opposed to artificial contraception (AC), that I regard it as a grave, objective moral evil, and that I’ve made no secret out of any of the above; but this comment of yours is hyperbolic and equivocal enough to be classified as “hysteria”… and it’s flatly untrue. As a ready example:
“If you support contraception, you support Planned Parenthood and Cecil Richards. Simple as that.”
This is pure, hyperbolic rhetoric, Bruce (and a classic case of the “fallacy of the undistributed middle”); one might “support” the idea of using artificial contraception (even if that is, in fact, also common to the beliefs of PP workers, etc.) without “supporting” the idea of ripping babies limb-from-limb. Your equivocal use of the unqualified word “support” turns your plaintive cry into mere screed.
By all means, make a logical case against contraception (though it’d be both kind and wise to be judicious about when and where to pursue the topic, and how far); but please find some way to learn how not to demonize your opponents, paint them with staggeringly large brushes, and/or the like. If nothing else: after you paint all contraceptive-tolerant people as “supporters of Planned Parenthood and Cecil Richards”, can you really expect anyone to take you seriously? Stick to logic, and leave off the vituperative rhetoric, what?
Paladin: “Why do you always seem to come up with the comments that I wish I’d said, myself?”
Well it’s tit for tat then, with your response to Bruce’s remarks. ;-)
But his non sequiturs may better be answered thus: “That’s not right. Heck, that’s not even wrong.”
He’s bringing ketchup to a brownie recipe: “Here’s the flint shards!”
Is Bruce an extremist or an agent provovateur?
Exactly hippie, humans are intelligent and can make calculated choices. And since the physiology of human sexuality is so much more than simply procreative, we also have the intelligence to develop contraception and abortion.
hippie says:
September 27, 2011 at 1:04 pm
The message is that motherhood sucks and women should expect single motherhood as the default situation. The message is that men like you if you don’t have a baby. As soon as you have a baby, there will be no more male attention because no guy wants a woman with a baby, not even his own baby. If you want to please the guys, don’t have a baby. Don’t even want a baby. Take your pills. Be available. And remember, no babies. Men are fun. Babies are not.
(Denise) Movie star Jayne Mansfield had won many beauty contests. An interviewer read off a list — necessarily lengthy — of some of her titles. Then he asked, “What is your favorite title?”
The famous sex symbol answered, “I like to be called ‘mother.'”
Reality: Yeah, I was wondering that myself.
He’s a bit splat and run, doesn’t appear interested in attempting to support his assertions.
Oh well, that’s his choice.
May the sun warm your life rasqual.
Well, lets start with a question:
What is the purpose of sexual intercourse?
Dunno. Please justify your implication of teleology. Then explain your use of the singular.
It’s not a given, Bruce. Note: I probably agree with you on much of what you’d assert. But you’re not grounding your assertions, so I’ll expect you to do better. Thus, you have a devil’s advocate here, brother. Carrying on in that vein, then:
So, what’s all this talk of “purpose?”
Actually, why don’t you start here:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/sex-in-heaven.htm
So was that the answer? “Dunno?”
Really?
My, we do have a lot of work to do in the pro-life circles.
Bruce, I asked you to justify your invocation of teleology in your question.
No, “Dunno” is not my answer. It’s the answer you’ll hear unless you justify your invocation of teleology.
If you don’t understand what I’m saying, you’re not equipped for this argument. And yes, that means you do, indeed, have a lot of work to do, if you wish to be taken seriously.
I don’t know about this, actually. I might take one step back from purpose and talk about a “final cause” or anything for which the action in questions acts towards. Purpose is one kind of final cause. So then, to me it seems a very strange thing to think that some action found in nature does not have a final cause. This would mean that when a certain action is performed (in this case, the sexual act) we would not expect anything in particular to be a product of this action but are open to any and all possibilities. So for example, without admitting that sex has a final cause, we would just as easily assume that spontaneous combustion is just as likely to result from the sexual act as pregnancy. This was of course why Hume could make his “problem of induction” argument; because once you throw away final causality, you do INDEED have this problem of induction where we have no reason to suspect that just because a certain something has been teh result of a particular action multiple times that it will be this time.
I guess teh point I”m trying to make is that it seems to me that once it is explicitly pointed out that one needs to reject any notion of final causality in the sexual act (and really, why is the sexual act an exception to final causality- one basically has to reject all final causes in order to logically reject it even once), then we see a reductio ad absurdum argument in favor of teh sexual act having a final cause. And this really is the same thing we see with pro-choicers when they ultimately have to admit that pregnancy does not have a final cause; there is no ends to which pregnancy points so ending one does not violate any sort of natural process because there is no such thing as natural process.
That’s what I might say; that it really follows from a careful metaphysical worldview on the whole.
Argh. Don’t confuse Bruce with reasonable remarks. ;-D
” So for example, without admitting that sex has a final cause, we would just as easily assume that spontaneous combustion is just as likely to result from the sexual act as pregnancy.”
Or we might just assume that no pregnancy whatsoever is likely to result from it. And lo, we’d be right more than half the time. ;-)
The telos of an act may differ in complex relation to the telos of a biological state coincident (or not) with the act. The state is not volitional; the act is.
The problem here is not that we’ve dispensed with final cause but that we’re bridging the volitional and the non-volitional while using the singular “purpose” — at least, if we’re Bruce. That’s not self-evident in any case.
This isn’t about denying final cause at all — it’s about ensuring that a meaningful conversation where it’s implicated doesn’t make naive assumptions, among them that everyone’s on the same page. That’s a hugely naive assumption in this forum — but that’s not stopping Bruce from projecting his assumptions as if everyone shares them or self-evidently ought to. “You can’t be pro-life and pro-contraception. Why avoid the argument, when you know (deep down) that it is true?”
I’m wondering where Bruce fits in the taxonomy…
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/
“The problem here is not that we’ve dispensed with final cause but that we’re bridging the volitional and the non-volitional while using the singular “purpose” ”
Ah, I think I see what you’re getting at here- so you’re saying that teh distinction between any kind of OBJECTIVE purpose (if it exists, which of course I believe it does) and the purpose of the sexual act TO ME needs to be made? Yeah, that makes sense. I guess then it might have been better to start with the question “Is there an objective purpose to the sexual act outside of ourselves?” Maybe that would be a better place to start?
I would also quickly add that I don’t think that an act need have only 1 telos (so I wouldn’t use the word “the” telos- I would actually argue that the sexual act is an example) and that a final cause of sex is certainly pregnancy, even though it may not happen ever time or even half the time. You might agree here, but I just wanted to clarify.
“What is the purpose of sexual intercourse”
Bruce, one of the regular anti-choice commenters here recently stated that they and their spouse had sex because they simply couldn’t resist each other.
Now while the event took place within a marriage and they were quite prepared to happily accept any outcome of the event, they did not undertake the act on the basis of trying to procreate. They did so out of love, attraction and desire.
How does that fit with your question?
Bobby: First paragraph, not quite. Second, yeah.
My point about volitional versus non-volitional aspects of sex (desire and act versus passive experience of fertility) wasn’t dividing subjective from objective, just driving at plurality (as you go on to note). Yeah, no use of the definite article allowed on this one — which was what irked me with Bruce’s question and prompted me to go advocus diaboli on ‘im. But even explaining what I was doing was no help. :-|
Actually, the correct answer is to physically unite spouses into one flesh and create a new human being.
Any other answer is simply false, no matter how much lipstick you apply to it.
(insert symbol for facepalm)
So any sex which doesn’t result in pregnancy is not allowed?
What if people genuinely try to conceive but fail, are they sinners?
Wow, just…..wow.
and a happily married, heterosexual couple who are committed to god, the bible and church but who find out they are physically incapable of conceiving must never have sex again?
or after menopause?
Bruce, you’re bonkers.
Do you realize that you’re merely asserting something — that you’re not giving any actual reasons why anyone should lend you credence on this?
I would be offering no less rational remarks were I to assert that the purpose of sex is actually to summon snarfs from Venus to morbify your clambakes.
On the other hand, you might be more shrewd than I’ve giving you credit for. You managed to sneak plurality in there following your definite article gaffe. ;-)
I thought snarfs were from Saturn?
Ah, no, that’s wugles. Boy, don’t invite them to a meal – phwoar!
Well, at any rate, I think everyone here would call him out on whether he’s broaching a Boolean with that conjunction. ;-)
I’ve actually pondered the possibility of Bruce being a, um… a, er…troll.
But if he/she/it is then they’re doing an absolutely terrible job of it.
Fantasy and Reality intersect once again! :)
Yes Hans, we meet again, hello ;-)
It is always fascinating to watch allegedly pro-life people so desperate to defend a practice so common among pro-abortion people – contraception.
In reality, contracepted intercourse is no different than oral sex, mutual masturbation, or the sexual practices of homosexuals. It has only one end – pleasure. To reduce the sexual faculty to pleasure alone is to hook one’s cart to the culture of death. You don’t want to admit it, but you are doing something that Cecil Richards does. You are doing something promoted by Planned Parenthood and sex merchants of the culture of death. You are active participants in anti-life/pro-death activities each and every time you choose to reduce sex to mere pleasure.
As for the Christians who are wrongfully engaging in a practice that leads not to Heaven, but to Hell, consider the following:
“Not all sexual intercourse pursued for the sake of pleasure is hedonistic or a wrongful pursuit of sensual pleasure. Pleasure, again, may be the motive for engaging in an act that by its nature leads to union (and procreation) and so long as one embraces the goods that follow from the act, pleasure is not a vicious motive for performing it. One cannot contradict the other goods of an act when performing it (as one does when contracepting) but to seek the pleasure an act affords, while respecting the goods of that act, is not immoral. Seeking pleasure is not in itself a sin; seeking pleasure selfishly is a sin but pleasure can also be sought in an unselfish way and in a way that brings goods to others as well as to one’s self.” (Dr. Janet Smith)
I am convinced that the narrowness of the Gate of Heaven is made so by the lust for pleasure and the reduction of sex to mere “fun”. To willfully deny the other good of sex is to be selfish and engage in activity no different than perverts and homosexuals.
You each are convincing me of this more and more.
“In reality, contracepted intercourse is no different than oral sex, mutual masturbation, or the sexual practices of homosexuals.”
Oh I definitely agree with you, Bruce. But I think that this is less obvious for people to see than becuase teh contraceptive mentality is SO SO SO engraned in our culture. It is simply assumed among wonderful Protestants that when you get married, you need to figure out what kind of contraception to use. So I think what Rasquel is trying to point out is that we need to really start from teh very, very beginning. Let’s try and argue whether or not actions have purposes. What do we mean by purposes? Etc. Again, I’m on the same page with you, but people are just so confused about this issue that I think we should try and be more sympathetic to the fact that it is very difficult for them to see any connection between contraception and abortion, and that they really are supporting contraception in good but misguided faith. God love you.
Oh good grief, now we’re having it that oral sex is evil too? Fine. So is digital touching of genitals. Or analog, for that matter.
And what of coitus interruptus — even accidentally? Vile indeed. How about foreplay interrupted by the kids? Satanic — an unfinished act! And let’s not forget kissing, which is mere pleasure. One should abstain or, of course, go on to sex. In fact, to avoid sinning, those who kiss must marry really fast and honeymoon immediately, lest this unfinished act damn them to hellfire. Alternatively, contrive ways to kiss miserably.
Bruce, doubtless, will construe my remarks as conceding what he believes we all really know, deep down, to be true. :-|
Bruce, for you to consign other Christians to hell because of oral sex or anything else, merits either hearty peals of laughter or a good rebuke from your priest.
It seems to me that NFP is evil as well, when it seeks to avoid fertilization. “Timing is everything!”
When does a pleasurable encounter between a man and a woman become a sex act whose obligatory end is vaginal orgasm? In short, when, in the course of touching, kissing, various states of dress — when, Bruce almighty, are they obliged to “go all the way” lest they be damned to Hell? That’s really an important question, don’t you think?
The fact that Catholic hyper-rationalists concede that establishing such things may be not only possibly but useful, is a testament to how even reasoning people can be insane.
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Seems I have touched a sore spot. Contraception does that to good people – the guilt of it always comes out like this.
I also see that you failed to read the quote from Dr. Smith I posted above, stating that having sex for pleasure is not evil, so long as one accepts BOTH ends of such activity (union and procreation). To purposely frustrate one is to render the act less than what it is. It is to distort sex, and make it into something else. That is why contracepted sex, with its sole goal of pleasure, is no different than oral sex, masturbation, or homosexual activity. All three have only one goal and accept only one outcome – pleasure. It is the height of selfishness. It also distorts what sex actually is, making it an activity pursued (with gusto) among those who ascribe to the culture of death.
Ask yourself why you have so much in common with Planned Parenthood. They’re being consistent in their culture of death, you’re not. That is the only difference. Wake up.
And the heart of the matter is this: Those who contracept are selfish and sinful.
I love you, rasqual. XD
“That is why contracepted sex, with its sole goal of pleasure, is no different than oral sex, masturbation, or homosexual activity.”
Your point? Those aren’t killing anyone (although you could go out on a limb and bring up the increased number of AIDs cases in the homosexual community, but that’s really more a promiscuity problem than anything, and those suffering are those who committed the act, for the most part), and if you’re not killing anyone (at least anyone who didn’t first do something to bring it upon themselves), I don’t really give a flip.
What’s it like to live in a world so wicked by your own standards? Are you alone right now?
No, I am married with three girls and one boy. Are you alone?
Anyway, my point is that the mindset which seeks to prevent a life is consistent with abortion, not life. To try and prevent a child from coming into the world is not the same as to accept that life from the start. A pro-abortion person who contracepts yet becomes pregnant and aborts is being consistent. An alleged pro-life person who contracepts, yet becomes pregnant and then chooses to keep the baby is inconsistent. Yes, the choice is good, but the mindset between the two is the same: The baby is NOT wanted from the start.
And that is the crux of the problem. A mindset which does not want a baby from the start, whether the person chooses abortion or not, is the beginning of the error. Because until that mindset is changed, abortion will NEVER stop.
Bruce: ” Seems I have touched a sore spot. Contraception does that to good people – the guilt of it always comes out like this.”
Good grief. Not only an epistemic boor, but delusions of grandeur — father confessor and prophet in one package.
Hyper-rationalist (as distinguished from rational) Catholics like you are seriously insane. Female orgasms without a penis are fine, but male orgasms without a vagina are not.
Your theology has more in common with General Jack Ripper from Dr. Strangelove, obsessed with our “precious bodily fluids.”
Dude. I understand your hyper-rationalist Catholicism. And I reject it while embracing far more of what you value than your obtuse polemicism is able to intuit.
“To try and prevent a child from coming into the world is not the same as to accept that life from the start.”
Well then, you’ve just established that it’s possible for NFP practitioners to err and be damned to Hell.
Dude.
Bruce writes:
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. Seems I have touched a sore spot. Contraception does that to good people – the guilt of it always comes out like this.
(*weary sigh*)
Bruce, seriously: is a basic self-awareness of smugness, presumption and self-congratulatory condescension truly beyond you? Your end is good (i.e. trying to show that artificial contraception, and the mentality which embraces it, is intrinsically disordered), but your means, quite frankly, reek. Unless you can learn to soften your words, and to recognize that you have a God-given responsibility to shape your words so that you do minimal collateral damage (e.g. not every roach infestation requires a nuclear ICBM to rectify it), you’re doing far more harm for the “cause” than you’ll ever do good for it.
To try and prevent a child from coming into the world is not the same as to accept that life from the start.
Sure it is. The two are not mutually exclusive. “If it happens, it happens.” can be a personal philosophy. I’m pretty fond if it as a mantra.
Bruce uses “that life” as if we’re obliged to “accept” what turns out to be a counterfactual through act of omission (contraception) rather than commission (abortion). It’s not a counterfactual in the latter case, yet Bruce sees them as equivalent.
Paladin: His problem is not harsh words; well, that’s not the fundamental problem. His fundamental problem is hyper-rationalism that is, itself, sinful, because it actually believes it is capable of inferring from a self-contained universe of propositions what other people are thinking, how their supposed acts move God, and so forth.
Bruce doesn’t seem to realize that I’ve never claimed to advocate contraception, nor does he have any idea whether I’ve ever used it (I suppose this derives from what seems his assumption: that people in argument only argue what they advocate, no one ever probes Socratically for the purpose of learning — everything is advocacy and advocacy alone). So basically, he’s playing the fool on steroids.
It’s borderline insanity. As Chesterton said, “It is by rather an unlucky metaphor that we talk of a madman as cracked; for in a sense he is not cracked enough. He is cramped rather than cracked; there are not enough holes in his head to ventilate it. This impossibility of letting in daylight on a delusion does sometimes cover and conceal a delusion of divinity [or of sagacious powers of knowing the hidden secrets of Internet interlocutors’ hearts]. It can be found, not among prophets and sages and founders of religions, but only among a low set of lunatics.”
Rasquel,
Let me try and clarify the belief that at least I have regarding contraception. My point in doing this is not to give an apologetic, but to clarify my understanding (and I would think Bruce’s).
I would argue that our rejection of contraception fallows from teh natural law as I outline it below. Assume for the sake of argument that natural law theory is true (again, I’m interested in clarifying beliefs right now, not giving a defense). So we would say that to purposefully thwart a final cause of an action (generally speaking) is what makes an action wrong. So for example, one reason that abortion is wrong is because it destroys teh final ends of pregnancy, which is to give birth. It also destroys teh final ends of a human being which is to live the good life and ultimately experience union with God. So when it comes to contraception, we would say that (again, assume for the sake of argument) the conjugal act is ordered towards procreation (and as Bruce mentioned, union of teh spouses). So any action one takes which purposefully and willfully thwarts that ends would be considered wrong on the natural law theory. Oral sex, for example, must be ordered towards the conjugal act. Thus engaging in it as “foreplay” would not be problematic as long as it culminates in teh conjugal act. Similarly, engaging in eth conjugal act but being interrupted by kids or a fire in teh house would not be bad. You had the intent to complete teh action but due to circumsatnces beyond your control, you had to stop to take care of something else.
What this also shows is that there is nothing wrong with NOT wanting to be pregnant or avoid pregnancy. That is not why we reject contraception. Nothing wrong with not desiring to be pregnant. The question is “what are the MEANS by which you avoid pregnancy?” Is it through purposefully and willfully thwarting teh sexual act? Or is it by NOT engaging in teh sexual act? There is teh difference between NFP and contraception. With NFP, teh way you avoid pregnancy is by not having sex, so that there is no sexual act being thwarted. With contraception, you engage in teh act and purposefully destroy (or attempt to destroy) its final cause. This does not happen with NFP because there is no sexual act engaged in to be thwarted. So again, seeing to avoid fertilization is not at all problematic on this view. It is HOW we go about it.
And again, nothing in the world at all wrong with pleasure in the sexual act. It is only a matter of whether or not one purposefully and willfully takes an action to thwart the final ends of a particular action.
So again, I don’t really want to get into a back and forth argument with this (because I have a pile of linear algebra exams to grade), but I only wanted to clarify my position so taht you understood what it is that Catholics (which I think includes Bruce) believe. God love you.
Most Christians generally regard sexuality as dual-purpose: for union/intimacy and for procreation. Just raising the question: if procreation while preventing union/intimacy is wrong (ie forced pregnancy by rape), would union/intimacy while preventing procreation (ie contraception) also be wrong?
One last thing- last me also say that while I do think that, very sadly, sins of the flesh will make up a “large percentage” of those in hell, I do not presume to know how any particular individual understands pleasure or whether or not they don’t want to give it up. That is up to God and them alone. All I can do is my best to share with people what I believe to be God’s truth, and whatever they do with it or how they receive it is between them and God. I certainly don’t think myself nearly articulate enough to presume that once someone has read something I have written, that they then are suppressing something if they don’t accept it. In other words, anyone reading this who goes on to contracept, I do not presume to think you will go to hell or that you prefer pleasure over God.
Bobby: “With NFP, teh way you avoid pregnancy is by not having sex, so that there is no sexual act being thwarted.”
But NFP is thwarting the entire fertile period itself. It’s not “open to life” precisely because it’s refusing to engage in the sexual act when fertile.
A couple practicing NFP could be as guilty of the selfish aversion to life that Bruce deems no different than homosexual sex.
No difference, Bobby.
My wife and I practiced NFP flawlessly, avoiding pregnancy until we intended it. We thwarted fertility pretty effectively. Before that year or so of NFP, my wife was on the pill.
I don’t see any ultimate difference if our intention was to become pregnant. “Open to” life? Sure. During NFP or our time on the pill, we’d have welcomed it. But the period of artificial contraception and of NFP had the same intention — to thwart fertilization while having sex. Neither failed in that intent.
So how was our “openness to life” (we’d have welcomed it had it occurred” any less, merely because we sought to avoid fertilization as earnestly as smug Catholics who look down their noses at artificial contraception while using NFP to the same ends?
I’ll say it again, I’m not unsympathetic to a natural law reading of artificial contraception. But those who abhor it and take refuge in NFP strike me as seeking special pleading for implementing the same hedonic preference for sex sans children.
Help me out here, friend. I’d like to understand.
Thank you, rasqual, for your post. I feel the same way, and I share the same confusion.
Rasqual, your argument is fundamentally flawed, since according to your view, abstinence would be contraception, which is a logical fallacy.
IT is all about your intention and how you treat the sexual act. It can be argued that contracepted sex is not even sex anymore, since the ends are not the same. You intend to prevent a life from being created – it is something you don’t want and you have taken steps which fundamentally alter and distort the sexual act to prevent it from happening. Those who use NFP do not alter the sexual act in the least – they simply either choose to do it or choose not to do it. The act is always complete and is always done with the intention of pleasure and procreation – even if procreation may not be possible at that time (though God can do whatever He wants, and it certainly can happen). NFP people believe that the sexual act is only true if it is properly ordered toward union and procreation, and thus it is never distorted or frustrated for purely selfish reasons (like contraception).
This is an enormous difference: Contraception is inherently selfish and sinful, while abstinence is not.
You can’t be pro-life and pro-contraception. Contraception is part of the culture of death, and is something pro-abortion folks support whole heartedly. The fact that you cling to it is sad, but changeable.
Or are you ruled by your crotch like the culture of death?
NFP means you have to abstain sometimes. Big deal. We are human beings with rational minds and not walking genitalia, correct?
“But NFP is thwarting the entire fertile period itself.”
No because there is no action to thwart. You are simply not engaging in an action. An unmarried woman is also not engaging in teh sexual act during her fertile times, but there is nothing she is thwarting. In order to frustrate the final ends of a particular action, you must engage in taht action and do something to thwart the action. Thus, one cannot thwart an action if one does not engage in it.
“It’s not “open to life” precisely because it’s refusing to engage in the sexual act when fertile. ”
I did not mention anything about needing to be open to life as a necessary condition to avoid sin. Remember, we reject contraception because we believe that one cannot frustrate the final cause of an action. One could very possibly go an entire marriage without engaging in teh sexual act, and hence not be open to life in that sense, but never be guilty of the sin of contraception. They certainly would not be guilty of any contraceptive sin (although there may be others, but that is a different issue). I guess what you would have to argue here is that it would follow that it would be a sin to NOT engage in the sexual act sometimes.
Again though, the main question is: in NFP, what is the action you are engaging in and then purposefully frustrating that action’s ends? The way one avoids pregnancy is by not engaging in teh sexual act. If you decide not to have sex, what is the act that is ordered towards something which you are frustrating? That hits at the key distinction. With contraception, one engages in an act and frustrates its ends. With NFP, there is no act.
“A couple practicing NFP could be as guilty of the selfish aversion to life that Bruce deems no different than homosexual sex.”
So as I hinted above, this is certainly true. But this gets into the reasons that one would want to not be pregnant which as we have already stated, is not in itself wrong to desire. In certainly CAN be, but it isn’t always.
“My wife and I practiced NFP flawlessly, avoiding pregnancy until we intended it. We thwarted fertility pretty effectively.”
Maybe teh confusion concerns the use of the word “thwart.” You did not become pregnant, but you did not thwart it in the sense of engaging in an action and purposefully frustrating that action’s end. That is what I mean here by thwart. To actively engage in an action and purposefully take steps to attempt teh ends of that action to not take place.
“But the period of artificial contraception and of NFP had the same intention — to thwart fertilization while having sex. Neither failed in that intent.”
Right, and again, it is not the fact that they have the same ends- it is in the means. Both cases of the pill and NFP one wishes to not become pregnant- fine. But like I said above, by thwart, I am talking about engaging in an action and frustrating its ends willfully.
“So how was our “openness to life”..any less, merely because we sought to avoid fertilization as earnestly as smug Catholics who look down their noses at artificial contraception while using NFP to the same ends?”
I’m not making any judgments about you or wife or your situation. The ends though, as I have mentioned, are not what the issue is.
“But those who abhor it and take refuge in NFP strike me as seeking special pleading for implementing the same hedonic preference for sex sans children.”
Perhaps I have not stressed enough teh fact that really NFP needs to be very prayerfully discerned and not used lightly by any stretch of teh imagination. One can just as easily have a “contraceptive mentality” while using NFP as one can while being on the pill or using condoms, perhaps even more so. I would encourage everyone to simply be open to life in the sense that they engage in the sexual act whenever they want to and whatever God gives them, he gives them. But there are situations like being in between jobs, spacing children, mother becomes very ill, etc. that warrant the desire to hold off on children for the time-being. Actually, let me also add this- NFP should NEVER be used because the couple simply wants the pleasure of sex without children. No, rather, it si because of an extenuating circumstance like I mentioned above. So just to say it again, one can easily have a contraceptive attitude when engaging in NFP, and I would condemn that.
And again, when trying to parse through the difference between contarcpetion and NFP, I would recall that it is not about the ends, but the means, and think about if one is willfully engaging in an action which is ordered towards a certain ends and if they are doing something to stop the natural ends of taht action while still engaging in it. I just don’t see any way in which abstaining from sex can be considered an action which has an ends that you are purposefully thwarting. I guess the question would be- what is a final cause of abstaining from sex, and what is teh action one takes while abstaining that thwarts abstinence’s natural ends? I suppose the best one could try and argue here is that the female’s ends is to bear a child so that when you don’t engage in the sexual act, you are taking an action which thwrats the ends of the woman, but this does not seem right at all.
Bruce. I am absolutely sold to the pro-life side of thought. I am committed. Ask anyonw who knows me.
Our family was complete at 3 kids. Don’t make me justify this. It’s a very personal decision, and we spent a lot of time in prayer about it.
You come and spend a day in my life, in my house, with my husband and children, and look me in the face and tell me I am selfish. I dare you.
Before that year or so of NFP, my wife was on the pill.
I was in the last long discussion on this topic, and after much prayer, reading and using NFP myself, I can see the difference and want to share the joy with other Christians. It hurts that some view our sincere beliefs as smugness but I do understand this as well because I felt the same way. I’m not articulate in explaining NFP and I think Bobby did a good job and maybe Paladin will join him(I think these guys do a good job without coming off as smug — me not so much).
Rasqual, your wife being on the pill was putting the responsibility on her. If a woman does get pregnant on the pill, she is apt to hear, did you take it everyday? This automatically makes the pregnancy viewed as a negative and that she somehow trapped him if he is opposed to a child. Whereas, if she becomes pregnant with NFP, both spouses are responsible. NFP takes a lot of communication which is essential for a healthy marriage and is 100% respectful of women — something that there is little left of in our culture. The pill also puts harmful chemicals in her body and is this worth it so that she can be available at all times? The pill can also cause abortion.
Courtney, I certainly will do so and would not hesitate.
If you love your husband and if you love God, truly, then you would not contracept.
Contraception is extremely selfish. It is to distrust God and distrust one’s spouse. It is to abhor the gift of sexuality and children for pleasure alone. Are you really saying you can’t stay away from sex for a few days a month? Really?
That is very sad, when it comes down to it. To distort sex, to engage in selfish and sinful behavior all because one cannot stand to put off pleasure for any length of time.
If you are committed – be 100% committed. Stop supporting the keystone of the culture of death/pro-abortion movement. Stop supporting Planned Parenthood’s source of funding. Stop supporting the practice that has fundamentally destroyed Western Civilization.
Bruce, LOL! My husband WISHES I would be that kind of woman who can’t stay away from sex for more than a few days! LOL! LOL!
And anyways, he had a vasectomy, and we are both 44 and I’m pretty sure he’s not going to get the boys reversed any time soon.
I have played a part in Western Civ’s downfall? Wow! Who knew? And I thought we were upstanding, church-going, Bible-believing, God-loving Republicans, raising our 3 gifts from God to become the same.
This is going to be BIG NEWS to my whacked out liberal friends. And here, all this time, I thought I had been choosing LIFE.
Bruce: “IT is all about your intention and how you treat the sexual act. ”
Right, Bruce, and engaging in it purposefully while avoiding the fertile period is intentionally no different than contracepting — it’s not open to life.
Dude. QED:
“NFP people believe that the sexual act is only true if it is properly ordered toward union and procreation, and thus it is never distorted or frustrated for purely selfish reasons (like contraception).”
Which is utterly stupidly self-righteously idiotic. NFP people are avoiding fertility. They’re having sex only for selfish purposes.
How on earth can you say otherwise, Bruce? You’re so obsessed with people HAVING sex for the wrong reasons, that you’re ignoring how people can see to it that they’re always infertile when they’re having sex — which is as much in service to pleasure-centered selfishness as the contracepting folk you judge so harshly.
Dude. You’re out of condemning mode. Consider yourself in full defense mode. Sorry, but you’re doing a lousy job of vindicating NFP folk from your hellfire.
“NFP means you have to abstain sometimes. ”
Why, Bruce? If you’re OPEN TO LIFE there’s no need to abstain!
Good grief. This proves that hyper-rationalists can be irrational.
Hey Bobby, if a person uses contraception during an infertile period, they’re not thwarting anything either. Right?
Was Isaac sinning against Leah by having sex all the time with Rachel and ignoring Leah? Heh. Seems to me God wanted Isaac to bed Leah; he blessed her because her husband was ignoring her and giving her no children.
So please, both of ya, don’t tell me that abstinence is not possibly sinful. I honestly see no difference here. I suspect I’m talking to a couple guys who’ve lost sight of the forest for the trees — selfishly enjoying sex outside of fertile periods to avoid pregnancy.
Is it a sin to always have sex one day before menstruation, guys? Why not? If it’s by design, that’s intentionally avoiding fertility. Why? Because no pregnancy is desired — just pleasure. But is doing so without contraception somehow righteous merely because it’s “open to life” in some non-way?
Dudes. Bobby:
” Remember, we reject contraception because we believe that one cannot frustrate the final cause of an action.”
So never catch a baseball once gravity’s bringing it down. God clearly intends that it land on the ground. It’s as natural as fertility.
“If you decide not to have sex, what is the act that is ordered towards something which you are frustrating? That hits at the key distinction. With contraception, one engages in an act and frustrates its ends. With NFP, there is no act.”
CONVENIENT. Moral self-righteousness while avoiding pregnancy. Bruce’s hell-bound hedonism as much as you want. A pure pleasure motive, with no interest in openness to life, is entirely consistent with NFP. One could be a hedonic idiot but if they’re exercising NFP, everything’s just peachy. Bruce’ll deem ’em saints while everyone else is damned for sure.
Good grief.
“you did not thwart it in the sense of engaging in an action and purposefully frustrating that action’s end.”
If I’m not fertile — argh, if my wife’s not — and we use contraception, how is that frustrating that action’s end? Is contraception a sin if it actually does not thwart an end because that end was not thwartable? In other words, what difference does latex make if it’s superfluous? I’d think it’d reduce to Bruce’s concern for intent — but it’s just here that intent with latex is identical with intent for NFP — no pregnancy. Pleasurable sex without that eventuation.
Again — good grief.
“ I just don’t see any way in which abstaining from sex can be considered an action which has an ends that you are purposefully thwarting.”
Fine, and I’ll consider sins of omission entirely non-sinful.
And Leah got lucky.
Praxedes: “It hurts that some view our sincere beliefs as smugness but I do understand this as well because I felt the same way.”
Which of your beliefs do you imagine I deem smug? I said “merely because we sought to avoid fertilization as earnestly as smug Catholics who look down their noses at artificial contraception while using NFP to the same ends…” — which is pointing out that folks who think NFP is God’s way of innoculating them against the charge of hedonic non-0penness to life, while they’re quick to spot it in others, are not just believing something but being hypocrites as well.
I’m not using “smug Catholics” in some synonymous sense — “smug” is an epithet Catholics have to earn like the rest of us; sorry, you don’t get the label as a gift. ;-)
“If a woman does get pregnant on the pill, she is apt to hear, did you take it everyday? ”
Not from me.
“This automatically makes the pregnancy viewed as a negative and that she somehow trapped him if he is opposed to a child.”
Not with us.
“Whereas, if she becomes pregnant with NFP, both spouses are responsible. ”
Why wouldn’t I be as responsible with artificial contraception? It’s my sperm.
Honestly, I think you’re not being reasonable. Why on EARTH would her being on the pill absolve me from responsibility if she gets pregnant? IT’S MY SPERM.
Who else would be responsible? Jus’ le’ me find ‘im, ooooh, I’ll find ‘im and then, boy, they’ll be trouble! ;-)
“Rasqual, your argument is fundamentally flawed, since according to your view, abstinence would be contraception, which is a logical fallacy.”
(emphasis mine)
Bruce, your observations would be ridiculous, because you’re failing to use your brain.
What’s fundamentally flawed, Bruce, is your hypocritical assumption that NFP cannot be selfish, and only contraception can be. In this, I note that Bobby differs with you. Maybe he’s hell-bound too, for slandering your immaculate NFP idol.
Having assumed that NFP is lilly-white and incapable of being a means for selfish hedonists to enjoy sex without pregnancy, you fail to even consider that abstinence can be selfish without being, itself, contraception — namely, when one abstains only when children are conceivable, in order to enjoy wanton sex at other times, cock-sure no unwelcome life will interfere with the party.
Drill down, Bruce. You’ve given REASONS why you believe contraception is vile. I’m citing reasons why NFP can be just as vile.
Jim is vile.
I point out that Germaine is vile as well.
Bruce comes back and says I’m engaging in fallacy because my “argument” is tantamount to a view where Jim would be Germaine.
Honestly, Bruce, your “thinking” is entirely bereft of trying to figure out what the other party is actually saying. You have the answers and you don’t need to listen — you need only speak. Heck, we all “already know” we’re sinnin’, and the conversation brings out the years of festering guilt we’ve been feelin’ without being quite able to identify what’s been tearing our lives apart inside. Thanks for helping us understand that!
Good grief.
“Hey Bobby, if a person uses contraception during an infertile period, they’re not thwarting anything either. Right?”
No, they are. Just because you foresee that the action will naturally not produce its final cause does not mean you can take it upon yourself to thwart that final cause. This is analogous to saying that someone who is terminally ill is just going to die anyway so we can kill them.
“Was Isaac sinning against Leah by having sex all the time with Rachel and ignoring Leah? Heh. Seems to me God wanted Isaac to bed Leah; he blessed her because her husband was ignoring her and giving her no children. ”
I don’t see the connection here.
“So please, both of ya, don’t tell me that abstinence is not possibly sinful. I honestly see no difference here. I suspect I’m talking to a couple guys who’ve lost sight of the forest for the trees — selfishly enjoying sex outside of fertile periods to avoid pregnancy.”
Nice, thanks. I really appreciate that.
“Is it a sin to always have sex one day before menstruation, guys? Why not?”
No, and I don’t see how you think it is based on the natural law framework I have laid out.
“If it’s by design, that’s intentionally avoiding fertility. Why? Because no pregnancy is desired — just pleasure.”
Okay, so what is the action that is being done, what is the ends, and what is the thwarting of that ends? You seem to be claiming that having sex the day before menstruation is the action. What is the ends of the action of the sexual act? Pregnancy and union of the spouses. How is it being thwarted? At that time of the month, it naturally is infertile, but you don’t engage in it and render it infertile yourself. If anything, this proves too much- that all sex that one engages in when there is no chance of pregnancy is evil.
“So never catch a baseball once gravity’s bringing it down. God clearly intends that it land on the ground. It’s as natural as fertility.”
Is this really how you understand natural law and the order of nature? I simply don’t have the time and the patience to give an entire discourse on order in nature. Why can we kill animals? After all, to kill them interferes with their final ends. Well, the reason is that there is a greater good and an order to nature that can result from their deaths; they feed, nourish, clothe us, etc. So we don’t simply look at all things that occur in nature and dub them all equal. Human life is obviously one of the most important, and since the sexual act pertains to the continuation of the species, it too is importnat. But if again, if not being able to interfere with gravity proves anything, it is again way too much because now we have no basis for a natural law. No, there is an order to nature.
“CONVENIENT. Moral self-righteousness while avoiding pregnancy.”
OK, I”m really sick of this. I have done nothing to warrant accusations of self-righteousness other than try and share what I believe to be the natural law without passing judgment on anyone or judging anyone’s soul. I’m done with this thread.
Bobby: “No, they are. Just because you foresee that the action will naturally not produce its final cause does not mean you can take it upon yourself to thwart that final cause. This is analogous to saying that someone who is terminally ill is just going to die anyway so we can kill them.”
This, from YOU? Bobby, really. In the case you cite, you actually kill the person. If a person uses a condom during a time when fertilization would not occur, nothing happens to any existing entity, and the counterfactual couldn’t even have become factual (since the hypothetical indicates genuine lack of fertility).
“I don’t see the connection here.”
Omission, Bobby. Better put, selective commission. I will only act when I know those acts are not going to create new life. This is true both of contraception and what I’ll call “hedonic NFP.” But you’ve already remarked well on that.
NFP seems, to me, to be a chronological offense no different than contraception. Contraception collapses into one occasion what NFP commits over an entire menstrual cycle. I’m not trying to stretch, here, for purposes of argument (see below for an example of that). This is actually how I see it, and I’ll be darned if I can get around it.
Granted, I’m trying to talk between you and Bruce, acknowledging a couple interlocutors at once. And that’s tough, because there’s some serious distance between you in important respects.
“No, and I don’t see how you think it is based on the natural law framework I have laid out.”
More of a Bruce question, I guess. You’ve already distanced yourself from him with your remarks about NFP, as far as I can tell.
“You seem to be claiming that having sex the day before menstruation is the action.”
No — avoiding sex while fertile, in order to enjoy wanton sex, free of concern of having one’s hedonic lifestyle interrupted by brats.
I keep having to resort to brusque locutions in order to make a point I shouldn’t have to be working so hard to make, here. :-/
“Is this really how you understand natural law and the order of nature? I simply don’t have the time and the patience to give an entire discourse on order in nature. ”
So how’s it feel to hear something utterly ungrounded? ’bout like I feel in this conversation. I’m listening to people who assume a moral dimension they’ve not explained. Specifically, note: explaining something in terms of natural law, is not the same as justifying why natural law gets us to sin in this particular case.
“OK, I”m really sick of this. I have done nothing to warrant accusations of self-righteousness …”
Cool your jets, and I mean that as a good faith imperative. I was responding to this, from you: ”With contraception, one engages in an act and frustrates its ends. With NFP, there is no act.”
You weren’t being autobiographical, you were speaking in the abstract. If it was autobiographical, it was out of earshot. My response was to that abstraction, not to the person posing the abstract distinction:
“CONVENIENT. Moral self-righteousness while avoiding pregnancy.”
That is, NFP deems itself righteous while getting all the hedonic goods Bruce condemns in others. I’m not saying you’re being self-righteous for explaining the distinction I don’t see as a sufficient explanation of your point of view.
“CONVENIENT.” Yes, I intend the force of it, but not against you personally. I was responding to your abstract differentiation, not a self-disclosure on your part.
That you value NFP, I assume. That you understand much of my concern, you’ve already clarified substantially in your earlier remarks about it. I don’t wish to muddy the waters through ships-passing-in-the-night misunderstandings of intent or tone.
Bobby:
If you’re still around, go back to this:
I guess teh point I”m trying to make is that it seems to me that once it is explicitly pointed out that one needs to reject any notion of final causality in the sexual act (and really, why is the sexual act an exception to final causality- one basically has to reject all final causes in order to logically reject it even once), then we see a reductio ad absurdum argument in favor of teh sexual act having a final cause. And this really is the same thing we see with pro-choicers when they ultimately have to admit that pregnancy does not have a final cause; there is no ends to which pregnancy points so ending one does not violate any sort of natural process because there is no such thing as natural process.
Show me the sin. That’s all I ask. Show me the sin. My project will be this — if you can show me the sin with artificial contraception, I will show you this sin with NFP.
I strongly suspect, though, that you’ll agree that I can do that, because you’ve already kind of said as much.
The question would be whether defense of NFP then ends up being an unwitting defense of contraception. My hunch is that it would be.
In short, I’d suppose this to be a tug of war where the more we pull, the closer we come to holding the same place in the rope.
Bruce’s mileage, I’m sure, differs.
Actually, rasqual, Bobby Bambino and I have thoroughly dismissed your criticism of NFP as well as your support for contraception.
Your descent into insults and irrationality shows that you have lost your argument.
For more reading, I recommend Dr. Janet Smith on the morality of NFP. Here s a link:
http://russellandduenes.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/whats-the-difference-between-using-contraceptives-and-using-natural-family-planning-nfp/
Abstinence is not contraception. That is just silly. Likewise, you are not thwarting an end of an activity if you fail to engage in the activity to begin with.
Oh, and because you purposely distort sex by contracepting, what you are engaging in is no different than what two (or four or six) homosexuals engage in.
Do you consider homosexual activity to be sinful? And if so, why?
Because in reality, that activity does not differ from contracepted sex. The ends are the same: pleasure alone.
In the mean time, I will abstain from sex tonight, which means I am neither distorting it so it mimics gay sex, nor am I avoiding pregnancy. I’m simply not playing. :)
The sin is to grasp at the power of life and death and attempt to take it from the One who alone has the power of life and death. You are a creature. You don’t get to determine the fate of other created beings.
Sexual intercourse is for the union of spouses AND the creation of human beings. It is not meant to be either/or, but rather both/and. Man cooperates with God in the second end. You willfully deny His cooperation and seek only the first end. That is distorting His design and denying His entry into the creative process.
NFP persons do not do this. God is always involved and the sexual act is always ordered, not distorted. He is always given the power to create, even when biology suggests its not possible.
NFP always leave room for God. Contraceptors do not – they are selfish and attempting to grasp at pleasure apart from God. (But God often gets His way despite their attempts). NFP NEVER seek pleasure without the possibility of a child – they abstain. Contraceptors seek only pleasure and never abstain. It is selfish and sinful as a result.
That is sin. It is as obvious as the forbidden fruit of Adam and Eve.
What is the PURPOSE of sexual intercourse? Great question, Bruce. Maybe people could benefit from a simple definition of PURPOSE:
purpose |?p?rp?s|nounthe reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists: the purpose of the meeting is to appoint a trustee| the building is no longer needed for its original purpose.
The purpose for sexual intercourse, the purpose for which God created it, the reason for which it exists is first and foremost procreation and secondarily, bonding between a husband and wife. When man removes the main purpose for it, sexual intercourse becomes a pleasurable activity, devoid of God’s main purpose in gifting us with it. Can we really imagine that this betrayal of His natural law pleases God?
Reality asks, So any sex which doesn’t result in pregnancy is not allowed? Let’s deal in reality here, the act of sexual intercourse must always be open to the possibility of new life, because that is the way God designed it. If we thwart God’s purpose for sex we only end up hurting ourselves in the long run. When I say ourselves, I mean more than each of us individually, but also our families, our nation and the world.
If you have problems with God’s design, take it up with Him or His representative, the Pope. They’ll both tell you the same thing.
“Actually, rasqual, Bobby Bambino and I have thoroughly dismissed your criticism of NFP as well as your support for contraception.”
Really? How is it a dismissal of my point for Bobby to agree with me that “one can just as easily have a ‘contraceptive mentality’ while using NFP as one can while being on the pill or using condoms, perhaps even more so?” — as he puts it?
“Abstinence is not contraception. That is just silly.”
Yes. Your understanding of this conversation is silly, since no one has said the one is the other. They share in common a potential for abuse, where sex is valued over life.
You don’t read, Bobby. You don’t pay attention to people. You presume to understand when you don’t, in the least: “because you purposely distort sex by contracepting, what you are engaging in.”
Clueless. We haven’t used contraception of any kind in over 20 years. Yet you use the present tense, still arrogating prophetic insight into people’s lives.
“The sin is to grasp at the power of life and death and attempt to take it from the One who alone has the power of life and death. You are a creature. You don’t get to determine the fate of other created beings.”
You’re asserting, Bruce, not citing evidence or revelation. Shame on you, substituting your own ungrounded opinion for the word of God. And guess what? If a counterfactual child doesn’t exist, I haven’t determined its fate. How can something that doesn’t exist have a fate? Are you a Mormon? Am I preventing some pre-incarnate eternal intelligence from being ensconced in a body? No.
By the way, my anthropology is traducianist. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
“Sexual intercourse is for the union of spouses AND the creation of human beings. It is not meant to be either/or, but rather both/and.”
Well then it fails in its purpose most of the time, Bruce. Now here’s where things get stupid — you’re going to think I’m disagreeing with you because I’m pointing out a problem with what you’re saying. That’s what’s funding the idiocy of this exchange, your incapacity to appreciate that I’m looking for grounding from you, not necessarily disagreeing with you.
When is it actually both/and, Bruce? Am I supposed to be “open to life” one day before the onset of menses? If we always have sex on that day, am I REALLY “open to life?” No, not at all. I’d be a self-righteous prig if I claimed that, while enjoying brat-free sex. (again, being pedestrian for your sake, Bruce, I’m adopting the voice of the behavior I’m representing for argument’s sake, not using the language of my own view of things; I run this insane risk of having you think I have a low view of kids — is it the satirist’s curse? I think so) “I’m not like those other sinners who use condoms — I’m open to life! [on the least likely possible day to conceive]”
“NFP always leave room for God.”
So much for the notion that you’re in agreement with Bobby. ALWAYS, Bruce? How naive can you be? Which is it, Bruce? Earlier you said, “It is all about your intention and how you treat the sexual act.” Now you’re saying that the method never leaves God out of the picture, and you say that entirely apart from intention. But before it was “all about” intention.
Dude. You need to stop being so triumphalist in your posts. You’re just opining wildly, apparently incapable of even understanding your interlocutors. Why bother, of course, when you’re always right? Eh?
Theresa: “When man removes the main purpose for it, sexual intercourse becomes a pleasurable activity, devoid of God’s main purpose in gifting us with it. Can we really imagine that this betrayal of His natural law pleases God?”
The curse of the fall included pain in childbearing and agrarian challenges, cited as “weeds.” This was God’s doing. Should we use anaesthetics during labor? Should we weed our gardens? Can we really imagine that such betrayal of this natural law pleases God?
“the act of sexual intercourse must always be open to the possibility of new life”
So a couple who only has “unprotected” sex a day before the onset of menses: are they “open to the possibility of new life” or is that a sham claim to justify their hedonic avoidance of pregnancy?
Do you agree with Bobby that NFP has potential to be abused and turned into something no different than contraception, from a standpoint of being displeasing to God?
Or is NFP a sacred idol in these parts, an ever-present help in time of trouble, an omnipotent answer to all questions?
I’ve had one honest taker who understands what I’ve been driving at.
“The purpose for sexual intercourse, the purpose for which God created it, the reason for which it exists is first and foremost procreation and secondarily, bonding between a husband and wife. When man removes the main purpose for it, sexual intercourse becomes a pleasurable activity, devoid of God’s main purpose in gifting us with it.”
So if someone wears a condom while his wife’s not in the least fertile, are they removing the main purpose for sex? No, because you’ve described this purpose as “procreation” — not the potential for procreation. If there’s no potential for procreation at a given time, there’s no possibility of act and hence no end thwarted. God clearly intends no act (fertilization) as a culmination of something where no potential exists (infertile times).
Does this actually all reduce to a matter of noetic uncertainty for some of you? Being “open to life” means “well, we can’t be SURE whether she’s fertile or not.”
Seriously, as of this moment I’m beginning to regard strident NFP-advocating opponents of artificial contraception with ethical suspicion. I’m saying that sincerely. I’m beginning to think this is the tip of a hypocritical iceberg.
Is Bobby the only one around here who understands this issue and can engage it rationally? Bruce, your link was preposterous. PREPOSTEROUS, from a standpoint of grounding your romantic assertions. And again (face palm, bang head on wall), that doesn’t mean I disagree with everything over there — or even with most of it.
Geez, how to carry on a conversation with someone who thinks everything you ask or pose in an argument is what you actually advocate…
Gah! “You don’t read, Bobby. You don’t pay attention to people. ”
And my problem is I don’t proofread. Should have been “Bruce.” Bobby pays pretty close attention, and has been quick to distance himself from unwarranted judgments of others:
I do not presume to know how any particular individual understands pleasure or whether or not they don’t want to give it up. That is up to God and them alone. All I can do is my best to share with people what I believe to be God’s truth, and whatever they do with it or how they receive it is between them and God. I certainly don’t think myself nearly articulate enough to presume that once someone has read something I have written, that they then are suppressing something if they don’t accept it. In other words, anyone reading this who goes on to contracept, I do not presume to think you will go to hell or that you prefer pleasure over God.
Couples can swing from chandeliers as far as I’m concerned. It’s just better for them and society at large if they do it within the confines of marriage, IMO.
:-)
Here’s another question for natural law proponents (and AGAIN, for crying out loud, I don’t necessarily disagree with them! Does NO one understand the many purposes of argument? This, from people who claim to be about ordering purposes? Geez!): what’s the purpose of language?
To communicate?
Really?
Are you sure about that?
Are you sure its purpose(s) do(es)n’t include precisely the opposite?
And PLEASE, let no Biblically literate Catholic here need to ask me “whatever could you possibly mean?” :-/
(*hmph!*) Again, you start all the fun threads (with good and rigourous debate) when I’m swamped with paper-work! :) I’ll try to jump onto this thread when I get a chance to breathe…
I’m not using “smug Catholics” in some synonymous sense — “smug” is an epithet Catholics have to earn like the rest of us; sorry, you don’t get the label as a gift.
Are you saying all Catholics who believe in NFP are smug or just those who defend why they believe in NFP? Is anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint on contraception smug? You disagree with me on this topic, does this make you smug? Your using this word in the first place, IMHO, says more about you than it does about anyone who supports NFP.
Not from me. Not with us.
And since you wouldn’t say this to use, control and/or to hurt women, it doesn’t matter if many, many men do. I (We) personally wouldn’t do this but. . . . . . .
Why wouldn’t I be as responsible with artificial contraception? It’s my sperm.
I am not saying you are not. Absolutely you are. But many blame the woman because, after all, it was her responsibility to take the pill correctly and even if she did take it correctly, there is no way to prove she did.
Honestly, I think you’re not being reasonable. Why on EARTH would her being on the pill absolve me from responsibility if she gets pregnant? IT’S MY SPERM.
Because it was her responsibility to take the pill correctly. Yes, it is your sperm but you were under the belief she would take it correctly and the pill almost guarantees no pregnancy, right? Would you be angry if she became pregnant and you found out later she forgot the pills for a couple days? What if a “friend” told you she skipped some on purpose to “trap you”? Have you ever heard men telling others how they were trapped by her? And again, because you would claim responsibility doesn’t mean others don’t. This is the contraception mentality.
Who else would be responsible? Jus’ le’ me find ‘im, ooooh, I’ll find ‘im and then, boy, they’ll be trouble!
Why wouldn’t the pregnancy represent joy instead of trouble?
Again, the pill also puts harmful chemicals in her body and is this worth it so that she can be available at all times? Expecting someone you claim to love to put harmful additives in her body so that she is available to have sex with at all times does not represent love to me. Finding other ways to love each other those few days a month does more good for a marriage than anything else.
Again, the pill can also cause abortion. If you are willing to allow a human that you and your wife conceived together (hopefully out of love not lust) to die because you were not willing to do a bit of work to figure out your wife’s cycles with her, then, ooooh, more power to you!
I agree with your last paragraph Bobby and I am jumping after this post too. My gut tells me that anything I have to add will only enable more disrespect and I will just be labeled as self-righteous anyway.
Rasqual proved my point repeatedly: The guilt of the sin and selfishness of contraception always shows up in hyper-defensiveness and irrational comments.
The fact remains that one cannot be pro-life and pro-contraception. It is inconsistent and hypocritical, not to mention patently sinful and destructive. To contracept is to do what Cecil Richards does. It is to engage in sexual activity for the same purpose and reasons that homosexuals and those who buy prostitutes do. Its all about you and your pleasure, and nothing else. That distortion of sex is sinful, destructive, and sad. Quite frankly, you’re wrong and you know it.
The fact that you have fought this simple and true statement so hard says an awful lot.
Please read my phrase “smug Catholics” in context:
So how was our “openness to life” (we’d have welcomed it had it occurred”[)] any less, merely because we sought to avoid fertilization as earnestly as smug Catholics who look down their noses at artificial contraception while using NFP to the same ends?
I’m obviously talking about Catholics who imagine that using NFP insulates them from the very charges they level at contraception users, while using NFP for the same purpose of avoiding pregnancy.
Does the context not make it insanely clear what I’m talking about? What is THIS supposed to mean? “Your using this word in the first place, IMHO, says more about you than it does about anyone who supports NFP.”
What does it “say,” do you think?
Seriously, why are you just reacting in knee-jerk fashion to me? My context clearly answers your questions: “Are you saying all Catholics who believe in NFP are smug or just those who defend why they believe in NFP? Is anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint on contraception smug? ”
Does, or does my context, clearly describe what kind of people I’m talking about? I think you can answer your own questions if you’re trying to represent my remarks faithfully. If you wish to misrepresent them, why?
I think my use of the term “says” that sometimes I make bad lexical choices; I grant that in context “hypocritical” would have made more sense — but smugness sometimes goes with hypocrisy.
“… many men do.” Bruce hasn’t been condemning many men as sinners — just me. I’ll let many men answer for many men’s issues. I’m not their representative. And their sin in such a case would go beyond using contraception to being uncharitable boors to their mates.
“What if a “friend” told you she skipped some on purpose to ‘trap you’?” How would that differ from if someone using NFP engaged in deception? Your example cuts both ways. A deceptive person is a deceptive person whether they’re using NFP or artificial contraception. NFP is not some kind of sacrament that sanctifies jerks — as Bobby agrees.
me: Who else would be responsible? Jus’ le’ me find ‘im, ooooh, I’ll find ‘im and then, boy, they’ll be trouble!
you: Why wouldn’t the pregnancy represent joy instead of trouble?
GOOD GRIEF.
You’re so kneejerk in reaction to anything I’m saying that you can’t even understand what I’m saying. That was an attempt at humor. I found the idea that I would not be responsible so ridiculous that humor was the only sane response. Now I need to explain the joke? “Who else would be responsible?” Playing on the equivocal nature of the question, it’s a joke about whether someone else might be the father: “Jus’ le’ me find ‘im, ooooh, I’ll find ‘im and then, boy, they’ll be trouble! ” Meaning, trouble like you’d expect if . . . good grief.
How on EARTH do you read what I said as meaning the “pregnancy” is the “trouble?” Praxedes, you’re sounding as gratuitously judgmental and prejudiced as Bruce. You’ve already pegged me as such & such kind of person, so you can’t even read what I’m saying without seizing on keywords you’ve heard in other, ignoble contexts, and attributing some kind of slimeball attitude to me about a pregnancy as “trouble.”
Parse any post I’ve ever written in this or any other forum on the Internet. Find one case where I’ve expressed anything less than the highest reverence for pregnancy and motherhood. In this forum I’ve used the most brusque lampooning language imaginable in numerous threads indicating my contempt for those who hold pregnancy in contempt.
Do you know anything about my family, Praxedes? Tell me, how many children do I have? Grandchildren? What was the circumstance of each pregnancy? How did I regard those pregnancies?
Yet against the syntactical, semantic and contextual evidence of what I’m actually saying, you overlay your own prejudice on my remarks on the basis of a single word you see like some Pavlovian code in your brain and attribute a low regard for pregnancy to me?
Now instead of an apology, are you going to double down: “Hey, I’ll just say he’s OBVIOUSLY holding pregnancy in low regard because he’s not rabidly anti-contraception, and besides, he seems to be assailing my sacred NFP cow so he’s obviously a jerk and I’m warranted in construing all his remarks in the worst possible way without even having to think about what he’s actually intending…”
“If you are willing to allow a human that you and your wife conceived together (hopefully out of love not lust) to die because you were not willing to do a bit of work to figure out your wife’s cycles with her, then, ooooh, more power to you!”
Judgmental, much? How do you know I was “not willing to do a bit of work?” Did you not read that we were indeed willing to do that work for a year after earlier contraception use? How do you know whether our original contraception use was, or was not, my own idea? My wife’s? Yet you can use the phrase “because you were not willing to do a bit of work” as if you know everything about us.
That seems smug, Praxedes. And you have the chutzpah to end the post with a sandal-dusting implication that your innocent and respectful remarks are unjustly met with “disrespect?”
I’m describing your actual behaviors in this thread, Praxedes. Stuff I see. You’re judging the thoughts and intents of my heart. Stuff you don’t see.
Do you think that’s respectful of you? Do you think it’s “disrespectful” of me to take exception to your misrepresentations and gratuitous assumptions regarding my character?
Rasqual has obviously failed, time and time again, to read the numerous articles and listen to the numerous experts who have clearly pointed out how contraception and NFP are completely different.
One involves the distortion of the sexual act for purely selfish reasons (contraception). The other involves no distortion of the act, and instead seeks to engage in the complete and non-distorted act when they have discerned it appropriate. When it is not appropriate, the couple simply does not engage in it (NFP).
Thus the act is never distorted or sinful. but always complete and involves God. Contraception is always selfish, always distorted, always sinful, and always excludes God.
The difference is as black and white as it gets, and one can see with how few words it requires to speak the truth, and how many paragraphs it takes to jump around the truth in an attempt to rationalize sin.
Game. Set. Match. Victory for God and NFP.
Rasqual, I salute you and your valiant effort, but I’m afraid you’re fighting a battle long lost by many like myself years ago.
The other involves no distortion of the act, and instead seeks to engage in the complete and non-distorted act when they have discerned it appropriate. When it is not appropriate, the couple simply does not engage in it (NFP).
Oh…so EVERYONE who practices NFP ONLY has sex when they can conceive and ONLY have sex in order to conceive. I didn’t know that…
Bruce, your “game” consists of saying “I am serving the ball now. Here it is! Look at it! See how it flies faster than your lame skilz can return it!”
If you have a specific reasoned argument to make, make it. Merely asserting what you take as obvious, and engaging in non-stop idolatry of NFP (“Victory for God and NFP” — good grief) may be a game to you, but it’s not reasonable discourse.
Hiding behind NFP, you can be as sexually selfish as you wish, Bruce. Cloaked in Catholic hyper-rationalism, your deeds and non-deeds are clean as a whistle. You could righteously enjoy sex your entire life without ever a pregnancy getting in the way of your hedonic calculus, and at the end of it all you could rationalistically justify it.
And we’ll all be thunderstruck at how well you’ve played your tennis game.
:-/
xalisae: “Rasqual, I salute you and your valiant effort, but I’m afraid you’re fighting a battle long lost by many like myself years ago.”
Not really. Only Bobby has engaged this on its merits, and we agree that NFP has as much potential for abuse as artificial contraception. Meanwhile, Bruce is off lighting some incense at his NFP shrine, apparently oblivious to the wisdom of Bobby’s caution. I suspect he not only doesn’t read my remarks, but neither does he read Bobby’s.
I’ve missed prior rounds on this; are there some reasonable players here other than Bobby, or does it always reduce to judgmental boors pigeonholing you as a vile homosexual-equivalent, and then inferring the heart and soul of entire episodes of your life from whole cloth? It’s ridiculous.
I’ve seen the same thing in abortion conversations too — on both sides: pop-psych diagnoses of “issues” based on inferences that certain words or phrases signify entire demeanors the reactionary interlocutor takes as shibboleths of any of a number of deep dark secrets only their cunning minds can divine.
Missed this: “Quite frankly, you’re wrong and you know it.”
Bruce, you’re arrogating knowledge you don’t possess. You have no warrant for that statement. The hilarious part is that I can claim that negative (you have no warrant) with 100% confidence — because you actually have none.
No?
Put it out here, Bruce. Provide your warrant for that claim.
You’re wrong and you don’t know it. That’s much sadder, really, than what you’re attributing to me. You’re much further from repenting of your arrogant judgmentalism, because you don’t know it.
Ergh. I seriously *do* want to jump in, now… if only to pour some oil on the waters! I’ll try my best to comment a bit, tomorrow (papers done, but wife time comes next). Take a deep breath, everyone… it’s not as bad as all that! ‘Till the morrow, then…
No need for my sake, Paladin. I went back and read some of your remarks in older threads; I found pretty much what I expected: NFP is as capable of abuse — of being used sinfully — as contraception is of being inherently deficient of good (to choose a careful phrase not attributable to either of you). Bobby has said that, and it’s been my point to make.
Personally, I’d think NFP enthusiasm runs a serious risk of becoming a superstition something like Mormon underwear, which some suppose is protective. In this case, using NFP protects one from being like those vile contraception users. Secure in that supposition, some will consider themselves free to avoid fertile periods in perpetuity as part of an unconscious hedonic calculus, and they’ll assume they’re morally on solid ground. Better put, perhaps, they won’t assume anything — they just won’t see any reason to believe otherwise.
No? Well, if Catholics abort (and they do), Catholics are certainly not inherently protected from being deluded about, and abusing, NFP. The human heart strives always to justify itself.
Anyway, has anyone noticed — at all — that I’ve neither been defending contraception, nor so much as hinting that NFP is anything short of wonderful? Parse me carefully instead of carelessly, and it’ll be evident that I’ve been engaging others’ assertions, not positing my own. In the course, I’ve not even implied that contraception is morally unproblematic, nor have I implied that NFP is not wonderful. Throughout, I’ve stated that my interlocutors should know that I agree with them on far more than the discussion would suggest.
But that hasn’t prevented a couple parties present from making strident, gratuitous, uncharitable assumptions about my character. It’s difficult to not see this as offended Philistines quickly dashing in to prop up their personal Dagon — aka NFP.
A thing regarded out of all proportion is an idol.
I also read of Bruce’s conversion. Based on his remarks concerning his former life, I better understand his rough edges. They say there’s nothing worse than a reformed smoker — and Bruce apparently went cold turkey after a five pack a day habit. But with no cigarette in his mouth, so to speak, he might consider that there’s no further need for huffing and puffing. ;-)
I think I’d peg Bruce as Rodrigo Mendoza — converted and as loyal to God as he once was to mammon. When good was threatened (or seemingly threatened) in this new state of affairs, he left the monstrance to Father Gabriel and took up what he knew — the fight. Some answer with grace, some with the sword.
Hm. Well… all right (and I won’t complain about a reprieve from typing another 3 KB “book” of a reply–nor will the eyeballs of most mortal listeners!). One qualifier I’d add:
1) NFP is not intrinsically evil, and its design lends itself to good use, but it is certainly capable of being used with evil intent by, say, being utterly closed to all new life within one’s sexual union with one’s spouse (much as a screwdriver isn’t intrinsically evil, and it’s designed for a good use, but it can be abused by, say, stabbing someone to death with it).
2) Artificial contraception, on the other hand, IS intrinsically evil (even though its users may be innocently unaware of this), since its design and purpose is to thwart that which God intends (i.e. a fundamental openness to the conception of new life whenever one partakes of sexual intercourse). One might argue that AC can have effects which have some “practical utility” that are emotionally pleasing/satisfying for the user; but hedonism and/or utilitarianism have never been a sane (i.e. morally/logically coherent) test of moral liceity, anyway.
I — an evangelical fan of Aquinas — wish scholasticism had taken more cues from Hebrew concern for wisdom, and not reduced everything to morality. It’s the ecclesial equivalent of governments enacting laws to criminalize what most folks handle naturally with social pressures and rewards of one kind or another. It treats as a crime what isn’t one, and it leaves the best tools for treating the behavior in the shed a-rusting.
Let’s bear in mind what you mean by “evil,” because the connotations of the term are problematic for a lot of folk (thus, Reality doesn’t even think of evil as a meaningful concept, which we know is absurd if she believes good is meaningful at all). You literally and completely, when the natural law arguments are turtled down, mean nothing more than privation of good.
But it seems obvious to me that whether there’s an intrinsic privation given a method, or on account of a strategy, the difference is meaningless. A couple using a condom or a couple strategically avoiding fertile periods are equally determined to avoid conception. Both are wishing to engage in sex without generative consequence. One thwarts with the will and the calendar what the other thwarts with latex. That the latter thwarts in minutes what the former thwarts in weeks seems of great moment to contraception’s critics among NFP defenders. Apparently, it’s more noble to conspire over a long period to avoid children, than it is to don a Trojan in a moment of passion where one nearly forgets to grab the thing at all.
Neither set of methods is inconsistent with a hedonistic preference for sexual pleasure over the risk of pregnancy (to use the language of the hedonist).
It’s a difference without a difference. A contraceptor and a hedonic NFP practitioner could magically switch places and incur no greater or lesser guilt. They’d both be having gay orgies, as far as Bruce is concerned. ;-)
I think it would be wise for Catholics in forums like this to explain what they mean by evil more carefully. Consider Reality’s reaction. She imagines a red-cloaked fellow with horns, and scorns the notion. This is akin to what I call the “blahspel,” a term I contrived while considering evangelism and The Far Side in one sitting (do not try this at home).
http://goo.gl/Vl6Wn
Likewise, if we use terms that are misunderstood by others, it’s not right to hold them accountable for ”knowledge” we imagine we’re imparting. “Well, I’ve told them the truth — I did my part.” No, not at all. In fact, by not representing truth sufficiently, a person enables hearers to misapprehend the truth. One might as well have simply lied about it all in the first place, yielding the same result with less effort (of course, a lie is intrinsically evil, whereas lazy disinterest in accounting for the capacity of ones audience to parse ones argot is an exculpatory factor, surely).
I have further doubts about natural law condemnation of contraception — doubts concerned with potential, counterfactuals, time, and ignorance. One of my most nagging doubts is that NFP apologists of the anti-contraception stripe are actually doing an epistemic hat trick, and that it all reduces to an argument from ignorance.
Bear in mind, amid all this, that you’re talking to a traducianist. You’re a creationist, almost certainly. It’s possibly the safest inference I could make in this conversation. It’s almost equally certain that I’m not as committed to my traducianism as you are to your creationism. However, unless moved by conscience or reason, it’s where I stand. And it makes a difference in conversations like this, because on the matter of generation God is as explicit in my children’s coming to be as he is explicit in the book of Esther.