"It is a sin to have intentionally barren intercourse.I went on to explain in detail that at all those times when the woman is naturally NOT fertile (which comprises by far most of her life) marital intercourse is morally unobjectionable, even though you know very well that the intercourse is not going to cause conception.
That is, to choose against the natural God-designed fertility of marital acts."
Making good use of naturally infertile times is A-OK with God and man, does not violate the religious convictions of anyone on earth, costs nothing, has no side-effects, and embodies an attitude of harmonizing with, instead of fighting again, healthy function. The marvelous female design.
Nothing cut out, nothing chemically suppressed.
Complete in every detail.
There's a moral difference between accepting the natural alternation between fertility/infertility, and deliberately chemically or surgically impairing it.
There's a moral difference between cooperating with the God-given healthy bodily design of a woman, and damaging the God-given bodily design of a woman.
You are equating things that are
and then saying *I'm* inconsistent.
You obtain your conclusions mainly by ignoring what I actually wrote.