Thanx for the ping, but I'll pass on discussing this topic since I don't believe it wrong to practice contraception. Even my good Catholic married friends who practice the rythm method do so because they believe it okay with God to do so.
Natural Famlily Planning (you date yourself by calling it "rhythm," a term which hasn't been used since the 60's) isn't contraception. It's abstinence.
A question, not just for you, but for everyone: Is there really any moral difference between NFP and "artificial" birth control?
NFP can be described as an attempt to greatly reduce the possibility of pregnancy, without entirely removing the procreative aspect of sex. After all, NFP isn't absolutely 100% effective.
Social conservatives point out that most "artificial" methods of birth control are not 100% effective at preventing contraception.
If that's the case, couldn't one claim that using an imperfect, "artificial" form of birth control is morally equivalent to using an imperfect, natural method? In both cases, people are trying to reduce the chances of pregnancy. In both, there is still some chance of pregnancy, so they can't be said to be completely severing the possibility of creating life. It's just that the "artifical" method is better at meeting the couple's needs.
Agree, or disagree?
(I'll set aside for a moment the distinction between "artificial" and "natural," as both use science and technology not available to primitive man.)