Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Mrs. Don-o
Your definitions are very Catholic, but they're also ludicrous.

If my husband wants a child, but I carefully ensure sex outside of the six day window am I not practicing contraception? I think the catechism definition doesn't match the dictionary defintion of contraception.

Celibacy is a form of contraception. The Catholic position is a throw back to a time of greater ignorance about human sexuality. You may agree with it, but it doesn't make sense.

Your arguments on the philosophical effects are more interesting, but don't hold water. I think they do make sense as applied to abortion, but that's murder.

37 posted on 04/23/2013 1:57:31 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: 1010RD

celibacy is contraception?

That is just whacked


38 posted on 04/23/2013 2:12:54 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: 1010RD; Tax-chick
I am glad you brought up the matter about the definition of the word "contraception", because that's the very thing that so often causes confusion in discussions of this sort:

"Contraception" dictionary links

As you can see, "contraception" is defined by the dictionary as a method of using drugs, devices, surgery or some sex practice (such as withdrawal) which deprives sexual union of its inherent fertilty, that is, to avoid pregnancy.

For that reason, contraception is an ACT.

It is to be distinguished from natural infertility, which results from several natural factors: age (before menarche or after menopause); time of cycle (a woman's ovulatory cycle has fertile and infertile periods); pregnancy and lactational amenorrhea, and so forth.

The moral difference between, say, using an endocrine disruptor like "the Pill" and and using NFP, is that the endocrine disruption impairs or disables the natural design of the body, whereas NFP reverences and cooperates with the natural design of the body.

There is other moral factors to consider: is the avoidance of pregnancy from a serious reason (maternal health, serious poverty, inability to care for a child) --- or is it from self-serving lifestyle considerations, i.e. we don't ant to get pregnant because we don't want the hassles involved with pregnancy and childbirth, we're going on a cruise in 6 months and I want to look good in my bikini, etc.)

IN the first category (serious need) pregnancy avoidance can be not only allowable, but might be even morally required. In the second category (childless or nearly-childless lifestyle preference) the decision to avoid pregnancy is ungenerous to the God-proclaimed GOOD of new life --- treating a very great good as an evil --- and exemplifies the moral fault of selfishness, even if they did it via NFP.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make these important distinctions.

They are not particular to me nor particular to the Catholic Church. A stance against artificial contraception was common to all Christian denominations, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant/Evangelical, for the first 1900 years of Christianity. As I pointed out, it flows from Divine and Natural Law, as is becoming more and more clear with every passing day.

39 posted on 04/23/2013 7:12:46 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; who put darkness fo rtlight, and light for darkness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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