You misunderstand the definition and I expected that. It’s why I included the example I did. Let me include it again:
If my husband wants a child, but I carefully ensure sex outside of the six day window I am practicing contraception.
Your definition ignores this important and oft used method of contraception: not having sex at all or avoiding those times that a woman would be fertile.
There are moral implications to all those decisions, including whether to use pills, condoms, IUDs, etc. I understand that you are dutifully working to present your beliefs - NFP, anti-contraception and celibate priesthood - but the facts don’t hold.
You may believe as you like, though.
Which "facts don't hold"?
The Bible facts, as presented in this article (or in the writings of myriad Protestant commentators, if you prefer)?
The physical facts of healthy human biology?
The dictionary facts of the definition of "contraception"?
The historical facts of what all Christian confessions consistently taught until the 1930s?
The historical facts of what has happened to churches and societies since the acceptance of contraception?
It seems as if *mentally drawing a diagram of a set of scales* all these facts would have some weight ... but for our society, on the other side of scales is the "brick" that reads, "We like contraception, because then we have sex on demand without children." And that ends it.
So let's clarify by Looking at different aspects of sex.
Overall, which best matches your point of view: A or B:
A: Natural, healthy, normally-embodied sexuality is a good thing. Man-woman sex is the way it's supposed to be. Therefore
Or:
B: There are no givens as to what is "natural, healthy, or normal" in sexuality., It's all about what I want. Therefore
Which position comes closest to the way you see it?