Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Claud
As far as I know, any and all contact is moral and licit, provided that the sexual act itself is not "closed to the possibility of life". Because that's what it's for.

Since no form of contraception is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy, can their use really be considered "closed to the possibility of life"?

It seems like they simply "reduce the possibility" of life. I guess this could be seen as immoral as well, but then wouldn't that make NFP (which also reduces the possibility of life) immoral too? Or is it all a matter of degree?

A cruder way of stating it is this: whatever you do, just make sure you are at the line of scrimmage when the ball is snapped.

Actually, I thought this was a rather clever way of expressing what I was trying to get at :) Do you mind if I use this the next time I am discussing the topic with my religious friends?

190 posted on 03/10/2008 12:28:54 PM PDT by timm22 (Think critically)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]


To: timm22
Since no form of contraception is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy, can their use really be considered "closed to the possibility of life"? It seems like they simply "reduce the possibility" of life. I guess this could be seen as immoral as well, but then wouldn't that make NFP (which also reduces the possibility of life) immoral too? Or is it all a matter of degree?

Hmm. You make an interesting moral point. Let's push this to the absurd. If I wanted to kill you, the means I might use are not 100% effective. You could still live if I stabbed you or shot you or poisoned you. Does that lessen the moral culpability on my behalf? No. And why not? Because no matter what eventually transpired, my *intent* was to kill you.

So I'd say intent is everything here. Suppose a guy wore tight underwear not realizing that was making him (in his case) 100% infertile. That wouldn't be a sin. But the person who used a condom at 50% effectiveness could be more in sin territory because he was actively trying to thwart conception and he knew it.

NFP is not immoral because all a couple is doing is not having sex during fertile periods. Nothing wrong with that. But there is something wrong with having sex and THEN blocking conception. It's trying to eat your cake and have it too.

However, and just to complicate matters, I and most other traditional Catholics would seriously question the morality of someone who was slavishly devoted to NFP to avoid pregnancy *and had no good reason to.* Just because it's allowed doesn't mean you should use it all the time.

Actually, I thought this was a rather clever way of expressing what I was trying to get at :) Do you mind if I use this the next time I am discussing the topic with my religious friends?

I probably picked it up from someone else...(I think G. Gordon Liddy has said similar things). So feel free!

200 posted on 03/10/2008 12:51:58 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson