[Forest Keeper]

I’m going to have to disagree with you on this one, DrE. The Catholic Church was right on the money long, long ago that artificial birth control would give humans the impression that secular humans controlled the origin of life. They called it a slippery slope, and I agree. Unrestricted abortion was the next stop down that slide, and the final stop will be (is?) euthanasia.

If your argument is that "artificial birth control would give humans the impression that secular humans controlled the origin of life", then what is the moral distinction between barrier contraception and NFP? (That is, how is the control issue different?) If you see no difference, then is it your position that all sex within marriage, but not specifically for reproductive purposes is sinful?

[xzins]

All sex within marriage is potentially reproductive, because (1) healthy sexuality strengthens and builds desire for one’s partner, and (2) there is no doubt that random fertility is a reality, plotting of fertily cycles notwithstanding.

I make no distinction between forms of actual preventive contraception and abortion. I do not recognize abortion as a means of contraception but rather as the ending of life rather than the prevention of life.

Contraception does give the impression that we are the masters of life. (And the Islamicazation of Europe due to birth rates gives an example of one of its effects.)

[xzins]

Correction: I make NO A distinction between forms of actual preventive contraception and abortion. I do not recognize abortion as a means of contraception but rather as the ending of life rather than the prevention of life.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

what is the moral distinction between barrier contraception and NFP?

See post #62.