[plusone]

You are quite correct. In NA, it is generally more a matter of convenience. I think we were talking in more general terms about the whole issue. And yes, in third world countries, birth control is often practised post-partum. That is what makes it all so sickening. And why I believe that keeping birth control and abortion as two, distinct subjects is important. You can be in favor of one, and not the other, and not be inconsistent. I have even heard extremes in both pro and anti camps about this. I've read that some of the extremists in the pro choice camp actually argue that life begins after birth, and that it is okay to kill newborns. These same people argued, however, that adult animals are aware of their own consciousness, and should not be killed. This is just sick. In fairness, I think those with this kooky view represent a very small minority. Also, at the other end of the spectrum, are the pro-lifers that actually argue that life begins before conception. What? What does that emean exactly? Does life begin when the husband stops at the wine store on his way home from work? Anyway, my views, and I suspect those of most people, are in the middle of these two extremes. Bell curves... Thanks.

[Aquinasfan]

Also, at the other end of the spectrum, are the pro-lifers that actually argue that life begins before conception.

You may be misunderstanding the argument against artificial birth control. The argument against birth control is different than the argument against abortion, but is equally straight forward.

Health consists in the proper operation of the body. It is unhealthy, unnatural and in most cases immoral to diminish the health of one's body. Only an evil or insane person would purposely diminish the operation of his bodily organs and systems.

The argument seems trivial. No one would argue for the right to blind oneself or for the right to amputate one's limbs. Yet many people find it morally acceptable to completely prevent the proper operation of their reproductive system.

(Preventing the proper operation of a bodily system is morally permissible when it occurs indirectly as when, for example, medicine with harmful side-effects is used to fight a disease. This is a case of the principle of double-effect. The primary effect of the medicine is prevention of disease. The secondary effect is harm to another bodily system.)

On the other hand, there are times within the woman's monthly cycle where she is infertile. It is morally permissible to engage in intercourse during these periods to avoid the possibility of pregnancy. (The same God created both fertile and infertile periods in a woman's monthly cycle.)

Nevertheless, the most basic purpose of the human reproductive system is reproduction. And reproduction is one of the two most basic purposes of marriage. So couples should only employ "natural" birth control for grave reasons, i.e. when effects resulting from a pregnancy would present grave dangers to the family and marriage itself.