[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Translation: since some people abuse freedom, we'd prefer no one had it.

With freedom comes responsibility. Do you deny the four points made in "Humane Vitae" have not been proven true?

NOT the rhythm method: Creighton Model
effectiveness

For the lazier among us. You've heard of the Clear Blue Easy Fertility Monitor.
4690/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
Clear Blue Easy
how it works

It tells you the fertile days in a woman's cycle. It even send a text message to Hubby's smart phone when the wife is fertile. instead of having sex during that time, you abstain. it even conforms to NFP guidelines.

So you can avoid pregnancy without taking a group 1 carcinogen into your body. All it takes is a little self control.

[subego]

Let's cut to the chase.

I see no difference in substance between the Carholic arguments against reproductive freedom you present above, and the arguments used by people who want to revoke my Second Amendment freedoms.

Assuming you take issue with people who do the latter, what makes the former acceptable?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Let's cut to the chase.
I see no difference in substance between the Carholic arguments against reproductive freedom you present above, and the arguments used by people who want to revoke my Second Amendment freedoms.
Assuming you take issue with people who do the latter, what makes the former acceptable?

Are you Catholic? If not, the church's teaching are not binding on you and are free to do as you please. If you are and dissent from her teaching, you are free to leave.. No one is going to make you stay.

Do you deny the four points made have not been proven true?

General lowering of moral standards

A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy

The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection

Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.

China's "One Child Policy" is a perfect example.

[Chongo]

More From Humane Vitae

Recourse to Infertile Periods

16. Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

[subego]

How is whether the argument pertains to something legally binding relevant to the quality of the argument?

The substance of the argument for people who want to restrict guns is the freedom isn't worth the consequences. My issue with this isn't the argument is legally binding, my issue is I think that analysis is incorrect. The freedoms are worth the consequences.

This is the exact same argument being given by the Church. The freedom isn't worth the consequences. My issue with this is the same. I think the analysis is incorrect.

If I declare I believe the citizenry responsible enough to own tools designed solely to end someone's life, it would be ridiculous for me to argue they aren't responsible enough for birth control to be considered acceptable.


As to whether those four points came to pass, I'd say there's no debate, however the assertion the primary factor is the acceptability of birth control?

I'd say that's hopelessly simplistic.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

How is whether the argument pertains to something legally binding relevant to the quality of the argument?
The substance of the argument for people who want to restrict guns is the freedom isn't worth the consequences. My issue with this isn't the argument is legally binding, my issue is I think that analysis is incorrect. The freedoms are worth the consequences.
This is the exact same argument being given by the Church. The freedom isn't worth the consequences. My issue with this is the same. I think the analysis is incorrect.
If I declare I believe the citizenry responsible enough to own tools designed solely to end someone's life, it would be ridiculous for me to argue they aren't responsible enough for birth control to be considered acceptable.
As to whether those four points came to pass, I'd say there's no debate, however the assertion the primary factor is the acceptability of birth control?
I'd say that's hopelessly simplistic.

Primary reason, no. To deny that it's made it easier for people to screw around, have unprotected sex, and led to the other consequences stated in Humane Vitae is more simplistic. The Church is not advocating making contraceptives illegal. The increase in the cancer rate and infertility and the resulting law suits will take care of that.

From the Business Insider article.

Painting the Catholic Church as "out of touch" is like shooting fish in a barrel, what with the funny hats and gilded churches. And nothing makes it easier than the Church's stance against contraception.
Many people, (including our editor) are wondering why the Catholic Church doesn't just ditch this requirement. They note that most Catholics ignore it, and that most everyone else finds it divisive, or "out-dated." C'mon! It's the 21st century, they say! Don't they SEE that it's STUPID, they scream.

Here's the thing, though: the Catholic Church is the world's biggest and oldest organization. It has buried all of the greatest empires known to man, from the Romans to the Soviets. It has establishments literally all over the world, touching every area of human endeavor. It's given us some of the world's greatest thinkers, from Saint Augustine on down to René Girard. When it does things, it usually has a good reason. Everyone has a right to disagree, but it's not that they're a bunch of crazy old white dudes who are stuck in the Middle Ages.

So, what's going on?
The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together. That's it. But it's pretty important. And though the Church has been teaching this for 2,000 years, it's probably never been as salient as today.
Today's injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called Humanae Vitae. He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:

General lowering of moral standards

A rise in infidelity, and illegitimacy

The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men.

Government coercion in reproductive matters.

Does that sound familiar?

Because it sure sounds like what's been happening for the past 40 years.

As George Akerloff wrote in Slate over a decade ago,

By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.
Instead of two parents being responsible for the children they conceive, an expectation that was held up by social norms and by the law, we now take it for granted that neither parent is necessarily responsible for their children. Men are now considered to be fulfilling their duties merely by paying court-ordered child-support. That's a pretty dramatic lowering of standards for "fatherhood."

How else are we doing since this great sexual revolution?
Kim Kardashian's marriage lasted 72 days.
Illegitimacy: way up. In 1960, 5.3% of all births in America were to unmarried women. By 2010, it was 40.8% [PDF]. In 1960 married families made up almost three-quarters of all households; but by the census of 2010 they accounted for just 48 percent of them. Cohabitation has increased tenfold since 1960.

And if you don't think women are being reduced to objects to satisfy men, welcome to the internet, how long have you been here? Government coercion: just look to China (or America, where a government rule on contraception coverage is the reason why we're talking about this right now).
Is this all due to the Pill? Of course not. But the idea that widely-available contraception hasn't led to dramatic societal change, or that this change has been exclusively to the good, is a much sillier notion than anything the Catholic Church teaches.

So is the notion that it's just OBVIOUSLY SILLY to get your moral cues from a venerable faith (as opposed to what? Britney Spears?).

But let's turn to another aspect of this. The reason our editor thinks Catholics shouldn't be fruitful and multiply doesn't hold up, either. The world's population, he writes, is on an "unsustainable" growth path.
The Population Bureau of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations sees (PDF, h/t Pax Dickinson) the rate of population growth slowing over the next decades and stabilizing around 9 billion in 2050…and holding there until 2300. (And note that the UN, which promotes birth control and abortions around the world, isn't exactly in the be-fruitful-and-multiply camp.)
More broadly, the Malthusian view of population growth has been resilient despite having been proven wrong time and time again and causing lots of unnecessary human suffering. For example, China is headed for a demographic crunch and social dislocation due to its misguided one-child policy.

Human progress is people. Everything that makes life better, from democracy to the economy to the internet to penicillin was either discovered and built by people. More people means more progress. The inventor of the cure for cancer might be someone's fourth child that they decided not to have.

So, just to sum up:
It's a good idea for people to be fruitful and multiply; and
Regardless of how you feel about the Church's stance on birth control, it's proven pretty prophetic.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2#ixzz223fKkuy5

[subego]

No one is denying it. If you give people a freedom, such as it being socially acceptable to be on birth control, there will be people will abuse that freedom.

What's being denied, or at least aggressively ignored, are the benefits of the social acceptance of birth control, e.g. it makes it far more practical for women to participate in society as something other than a wife or mother.

That the authors show a lack of consideration for said benefit implies they do not ascribe it much value. Is this the case with you? What value do you place on women having the means to participate in society beyond those narrow roles?

[Chongo]

What roles were not open to women prior to the advent of oral contraceptives?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not sure what you are referring to with "it", so therefore also don't know what "it" is not.
I mentioned there are reasons to take BCPs other than knockin' the boots, but that was back on page one. I want credit.

Heh - sorry about that! Then it appears you are one of the few sane people in this thread.

It really bothers me more than I let on that the conservatives around here have fallen for the naive fallacy that women only want birth control to facilitate slutty behavior. It's particularly naive because if you are a man, you don't know what periods are like. At all. As such, men don't really have any business deciding for women why they want birth control.

Unlike abortion arguments, this is a case of what rights a woman has to do what she wants with her own body. I get the feeling that the conservative folks here would have little problem with a mandatory questionnaire for woman who want HBC. Why are you going on birth control? Are you married? Are you in a relationship? Are you sexually active? Will you directly benefit from the contraceptive effects of HBC? If you answered "yes", you are not a candidate for HBC.

Is it just me, or is that insane?

There's also the fact that this particular aspect of ObamaCare has been completely blown out of proportion.

Obama never said that women would be required to actually take birth control. The mandate was that health insurance companies cover the cost of birth control at 100%. I don't know offhand if there were specifics on what kinds of birth control would be required to be covered.

This clause was modified so that religious organizations did not have to include 100% birth control coverage for their employees.

That wasn't enough, and people are continuing to wig out because religiously-affiliated organizations, like schools and hospitals, were not exempted.

Has it occurred to you that there are a lot of non-Catholic - daresay, non-religious - employees at any Catholic-affiliated hospital? It is one thing to discuss the employees of a church or synagogue. It's quite another to discuss the thousands of employees at a hospital, many of whom have no moral objection to contraceptives.

There is, of course, also rebuttal to the idea that access to contraceptives reduces women to "mere objects" who serve little purpose other than to sexually gratify men.

I'm sorry. I hate to break it to you, but women are sexual beings as well. In fact, a lot of women enjoy sex immensely. Those women want to take the precautions necessary to enjoy sex in a safe, responsible manner. A woman on birth control did not choose to go on HBC so that some guy could use her. I realize this is difficult for fundie types to comprehend, but a single woman who goes on HBC for its contraceptive purposes is doing it so that she can enjoy sex more.

If anything, the conservative Christian (and Catholic) attitude toward sex is far more damaging than the secular world's views. It's a mind**** to be raised to believe that men are these sexual animals who aren't to be held accountable for their lusts, and therefore it's up to the women to modify their own behavior to prevent men from "stumbling". Much of the mindset behind the belief that contraceptive is wrong comes from the belief that women are primarily vehicles for bearing children. Sex is for procreation first. Pleasure is secondary. If you want to have sex for pleasure, the woman needs to monitor her fertility and only have sex in the small window of time when it's least likely that she'll get pregnant. Of course, if you don't want to have sex in that small window and you were hoping to have sex a week earlier, that's just too damn bad, isn't it? There are so many contradictions in the fundie view of sex that it makes my head spin.

And I know far too many girls from my childhood (I went to a fundie Christian school K-12 in the heart of the Midwest) who started popping out babies before they were even 21, because that's just what you do. Doesn't matter that you might not be mature enough to raise a goddamn child, your role as a woman is to get married and bear children. Anyone who disagrees is launching an attack on "the traditional family", and they must be silenced.

I realize that turned into a long-winded rant that probably isn't as coherent as I'd like it to be, but I've been sick for a week. This particular issue is one that infuriates me because I have seen firsthand how women are subjugated and reduced to nothing but baby cookers and housewives because their all-knowing, all-controlling husbands believe that contraceptives are wrong. The conservative Christian community has put sex on this pedestal like it is the end all, be all culmination of your existence, possibly seconded only by the ultimate goal of getting married and having babies. Is it any wonder that so many Christian couples end in divorce after decades in a bitter, loveless marriage that they believe they are Biblically sentenced to endure?

The judgment I have seen here passed on women who use HBC (for any reason) is absolutely sickening.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What roles were not open to women prior to the advent of oral contraceptives?

I realize you are likely being deliberately obtuse, but let me spell it out for you.

It is very difficult for a woman who wants to be something other than a homemaker and mother to do so if she has no control over when and how she reproduces.

A woman who is married is going to have sex with her husband. Even you think that's okay, right? If she also wants to have a career and do something with her life other than raise children for two decades of her adulthood, she needs to actually plan ahead and figure out if she even wants to have kids. If she doesn't want to have kids but wants to have a normal sex life, this is extremely difficult without the use of some kind of contraceptive device - birth control, condoms, etc. Given that the general anti-HBC attitude is driven by the idea that marriages are primarily designed to produce children, I'm pretty sure that you're also going to argue against the use of condoms.

If a woman wants to lead an independent life - married or not - without having to worry about getting pregnant, it is difficult for her to do so without contraception. I realize that you believe that the rhythm & prayer method is perfectly adequate to facilitate this, but surprisingly enough, there are people out there who want to be able to have sex without scheduling it a month in advance based on the woman's ovulation cycle.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Obama never said that women would be required to actually take birth control. The mandate was that health insurance companies cover the cost of birth control at 100%. I don't know offhand if there were specifics on what kinds of birth control would be required to be covered.

This clause was modified so that religious organizations did not have to include 100% birth control coverage for their employees.

That wasn't enough, and people are continuing to wig out because religiously-affiliated organizations, like schools and hospitals, were not exempted.

The HHS mandate was not modified and published as it was originally announced. The mandate exemption is so narrow that the only Churches are exempt.

Oral contraceptives have been generics for some time. They can be obtained for as little as $9 for a 90 day supply. Abortion inducing drugs and sterilization procedures are also under this mandate.

The Church recognizes there are legitimate uses for treating actual diseases and fall under the "Principal of Double Effect."

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I realize you are likely being deliberately obtuse, but let me spell it out for you.

It is very difficult for a woman who wants to be something other than a homemaker and mother to do so if she has no control over when and how she reproduces.

A woman who is married is going to have sex with her husband. Even you think that's okay, right? If she also wants to have a career and do something with her life other than raise children for two decades of her adulthood, she needs to actually plan ahead and figure out if she even wants to have kids. If she doesn't want to have kids but wants to have a normal sex life, this is extremely difficult without the use of some kind of contraceptive device - birth control, condoms, etc. Given that the general anti-HBC attitude is driven by the idea that marriages are primarily designed to produce children, I'm pretty sure that you're also going to argue against the use of condoms.

If a woman wants to lead an independent life - married or not - without having to worry about getting pregnant, it is difficult for her to do so without contraception. I realize that you believe that the rhythm & prayer method is perfectly adequate to facilitate this, but surprisingly enough, there are people out there who want to be able to have sex without scheduling it a month in advance based on the woman's ovulation cycle.

Natural Family Planning (NFP) is NOT the rhythm method and is just as effective as oral contraceptives. It does take some self control. There is the benefit of not ingesting a group 1 carcinogen on a daily basis. The long term effects of hormonal based contraceptives are just being uncovered. In addition to cancer, difficulty achieving pregnancy (or outright infertility) due to thinning of the uterine lining has been shown to occur. There are the other side effects that ambulance chasers are advertising on TV for clients.

[andi*pandi]

Ovulation predictors are not 100% accurate... and peesticks do cost money.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Natural Family Planning (NFP) is NOT the rhythm method and is just as effective as oral contraceptives. It does take some self control.

So the church is okay with sex for pleasure, as long as its really hard to do?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

There is the benefit of not ingesting a group 1 carcinogen on a daily basis. The long term effects of hormonal based contraceptives are just being uncovered. In addition to cancer, difficulty achieving pregnancy (or outright infertility) due to thinning of the uterine lining has been shown to occur. There are the other side effects that ambulance chasers are advertising on TV for clients.

Completely disingenuous concern. This is not the church's objection to the medication.

[Chongo]

Self control. Two to three days a month to avoid. That leaves over four weeks a month. Do you lack self control?


I did not say that was why the Church opposes HBC. I said NFP has the added benefit of not ingesting a group 1 carcinogen on a daily basis.

American Cancer Society- Known and Probable Human Carcinogens

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Self control. Two to three days a month to avoid. That leaves over four weeks a month. Do you lack self control?

It's not about self-control. It's about increasing the risk of pregnancy, and in turn decreasing the amount of people that will engage int he behavior because they are willing to take said risk. If the same effect can be achieved by artificial means what is the objection?


Try this: If someone on the pill decides to observe religiously inspired "self-control" by designating the same two to three days per month to practice controlled celibacy is it ok then? Why not?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I did not say that was why the Church opposes HBC. I said NFP has the added benefit of not ingesting a group 1 carcinogen on a daily basis.

This is sort of like selling me on all the taxes I won't have to pay when I get a pay cut.

[Chongo]

This all a moot point if you are not Catholic. Non Catholics are free to due as they wish as they always have been. (Walmart has all HBC you want for $9 for a 90 day supply). Don't forget to take it.
If you are Catholic and do not like the Church's teaching, you are free to leave.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

This all a moot point if you are not Catholic. Non Catholics are free to due as they wish as they always have been. (Walmart has all HBC you want for $9 for a 90 day supply). If you are Catholic and do not like the Church's teaching, you are free to leave.

This is a dodge. Answer the questions.

[Chongo]

To answer the question. If they are taking the pill for contraceptive purposes only, no it's contrary to Church teaching.

BTW, are you Catholic?

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If you are Catholic and do not like the Church's teaching, you are free to leave.

"Lo, and the Vatican will close the under-used empty churches, and thus sell them to developers, to be turned into condominiums, and the Lord saw all of this, and was content. "

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

To answer the question. If they are taking the pill for contraceptive purposes only, no it's contrary to Church teaching.

I don't understand, if NFP is contraception, what is the difference?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

BTW, are you Catholic?

Raised catholic, went through 9 years of catholic school, now agnostic.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

"Lo, and the Vatican will close the under-used empty churches, and thus sell them to developers, to be turned into condominiums, and the Lord saw all of this, and was content. "

Hmm, we're having to build new churches out west. We have Episcopalians converting on a monthly basis. Five years ago active Catholics surpassed active Anglicans in the UK. After BXVI issued Anglicanorum Coetibus, we've had entire Anglican parishes convert.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't understand, if NFP is contraception, what is the difference?

With NFP, the marital act is open to the possibility of life, whereas the use of artificial contraceptives closes it to life.

There are several methods, one that even uses the "Clear Blue Easy Fertility Monitor" (The Marquette Method)

Raised catholic, went through 9 years of catholic school, now agnostic.

The the churches teaching aren't binding on you.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

With NFP, the marital act is open to the possibility of life, whereas the use of artificial contraceptives closes it to life.

But the end goal is the same, isn't it? So what is superior about a couple getting pregnant against their wishes? My best reasoning just now is preservation of the religion (i.e., dropping birthrates in Catholic households = bad). Otherwise, like I said, just knowing that people will abstain rather than risk accidental pregnancy.

Edit: As promoters of abstinence will tell you, the pill is not 100% effective. Therefore, if you are on the pill, you are still "open" to the possibility of life. Only abstinence closes the possibility of life.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The the churches teaching aren't binding on you.

Unless I work at one of their for-profit companies.

[Chongo]

You are free to buy all the HBC you want. They went generic long ago

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

You are free to buy all the HBC you want. They went generic long ago

Don't play dumb. The entire thread is about that very stance.

Edit: As promoters of abstinence will tell you, the pill is not 100% effective. Therefore, if you are on the pill, you are still "open" to the possibility of life. Only abstinence closes the possibility of life.

Any objection to this reasoning?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Edit: As promoters of abstinence will tell you, the pill is not 100% effective. Therefore, if you are on the pill, you are still "open" to the possibility of life. Only abstinence closes the possibility of life.

Any objection to this reasoning?

The pill interferes with the natural function of the reproductive system. Abstinence does not. Abstaining from sex during fertile days is fine. If you want to buy HBC on the taxpayers dime, set up an HSA

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The pill interferes with the natural function of the reproductive system. Abstinence doe not. Abstaining from sex during fertile days is fine.

I wasn't comparing the pill to abstinence, I was comparing it to NFP. They both serve the same function, do they not? Pregnancy can still happen under both, can it not?

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If you want to buy HBC on the taxpayers dime set up an HSA

You can keep ignoring the point of the law, and I'll keep ignoring the pointless comments.

[Chongo]

Abstinence is part of NFP.

[The Final Dakar]

That's an interesting point. Would you consider restraining from sex during menstruation abstinence?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's an interesting point. Would you consider restraining from sex during menstruation abstinence?

[The Final Dakar]

Nevermind; I've devolved into a semantic argument that's meaningless. The answer is technically yes, in the spirit of the church, no.


Anyway, perusing the wiki gave me the answer I was looking for earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning

Additionally, NFP differs greatly from contraception because, according to action theory, NFP does not "break" the sexual act (separating the action from its purposes) in the way contraception does.

Of course, I have no idea what action theory is, so I guess that's more wikipedia for me later.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Nevermind; I've devolved into a semantic argument that's meaningless. The answer is technically yes, in the spirit of the church, no.
Anyway, perusing the wiki gave me the answer I was looking for earlier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning
Of course, I have no idea what action theory is, so I guess that's more wikipedia for me later.

You will get a lot better info here then from Wikipedia
New Jersey Natural Family Planning

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Self control. Two to three days a month to avoid. That leaves over four weeks a month. Do you lack self control?

Translation: are you that much of a slut?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Nevermind; I've devolved into a semantic argument that's meaningless. The answer is technically yes, in the spirit of the church, no.
Anyway, perusing the wiki gave me the answer I was looking for earlier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning
Of course, I have no idea what action theory is, so I guess that's more wikipedia for me later.

"Separating the action from its purposes" - in other words, the primary (and possibly only) purpose of sexual intercourse is to procreate.

If you have sexual intercourse and specifically do not want to procreate, you are twisting the God-ordained purpose of sex.

There are many valid reasons why a married couple might want to put off having children - or might want to avoid having children altogether. None of these reasons are valid in the eyes of conservative Christians and Catholics (believe me, the Catholic church is not the only religious organization hellbent on forcing women to have babies).

Of course, when it comes down to it, NFP is just another vehicle for avoiding having children until you're ready, so I'm unconvinced that it's somehow a morally superior option over using HBC - or condoms. Sex is made for having babies. It goes to follow that sex deliberately scheduled to avoid having babies isn't any better than other options.

But it does make people like Chongo feel better about their belief that women are simply vehicles for procreation.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Natural Family Planning (NFP) is NOT the rhythm method and is just as effective as oral contraceptives.

Frankly, you should have a problem with that. It's not like birth control was invented with oral contraception. What the pill brought to the table was a high success rate and ease of use.

NFP already has a high success rate, and its use is becoming progressively easier, as you gave examples of above.

I seem to recall you, a couple of authors, and the Pope arguing easy and successful birth control is a destructive force.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

"Separating the action from its purposes" - in other words, the primary (and possibly only) purpose of sexual intercourse is to procreate.

If you have sexual intercourse and specifically do not want to procreate, you are twisting the God-ordained purpose of sex.

There are many valid reasons why a married couple might want to put off having children - or might want to avoid having children altogether. None of these reasons are valid in the eyes of conservative Christians and Catholics (believe me, the Catholic church is not the only religious organization hellbent on forcing women to have babies).

Of course, when it comes down to it, NFP is just another vehicle for avoiding having children until you're ready, so I'm unconvinced that it's somehow a morally superior option over using HBC - or condoms. Sex is made for having babies. It goes to follow that sex deliberately scheduled to avoid having babies isn't any better than other options.

But it does make people like Chongo feel better about their belief that women are simply vehicles for procreation.

Paragraph 16 of Humanae Vitae.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained. (20)

[OAW]

I am not Catholic. That being said I am the product of Catholic education at the high school and college level. So given my familiarity with the doctrine, I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say that in 2012 it puzzles me that people still lend any credence to the opinions of a small group of supposedly celibate men when it comes to family planning.

OAW

[Waragainstsleep]

If the sole purpose of sex is procreation, why is it so fun?

Its all I can do to resist posting the 'Every Sperm is Sacred' song from Meaning of Life.....

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I am not Catholic. That being said I am the product of Catholic education at the high school and college level. So given my familiarity with the doctrine, I don't think I'm speaking out of turn when I say that in 2012 it puzzles me that people still lend any credence to the opinions of a small group of supposedly celibate men when it comes to family planning.
OAW

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
―Venerable Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

[OAW]

^^^^^^
Clearly you're missing the point. It's not about the mores of one generation versus another. It's about the fact that they simply have no standing to comment on the topic one way or the other. And they NEVER did.

OAW

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^^^^
Clearly you're missing the point. It's not about the mores of one generation versus another. It's about the fact that they simply have no standing to comment on the topic one way or the other. And they NEVER did.
OAW

Since Jesus was not married, he has no standing to comment on marriage?

[OAW]

^^^^^^

Beyond the rudimentary platitudes … not especially. It's like these so-called child development "experts" who don't have children. These military "experts" who've never been to war. Culinary "experts" who've never boiled an egg. In any other walk of life such things would be taken with a justifiable grain of salt. But when it comes to religion, all of a sudden we're supposed to sacrifice logic, sound reasoning, and simple common sense on the altar of BELIEF. I am by no means an atheist. At the same time, it is an indisputable fact that the Catholic Church (among others) was knee deep in the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. So as an institution, if it could be on the wrong side of history with respect to that .... how then is it inconceivable that it is on the wrong side with respect to contraception? I'm just saying ...

OAW

[subego]

@Chongo

Since you didn't answer my implied question, I'll ask it explicitly.

Is accurate and easy to use NFP a destructive force upon society, or not?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Chongo
Since you didn't answer my implied question, I'll ask it explicitly.
Is accurate and easy to use NFP a destructive force upon society, or not?

No . Paul VI was speaking about artificial birth control. Read it for yourself

Humanae Vitae

[subego]

He doesn't address the contradiction, he makes it. Hence my need to probe you for your opinion in his stead.

Pope Paul VI's claim is artificial contraception will open the way to infidelity and a lowering of moral standards. How does accurate and easy-to-use NFP not open the way in the exact same manner?

The Pope makes it clear there's a theological distinction between natural and artificial means of contraception, but as natural means become as good as artificial means, there's no practical distinction.

Which leads back to the question I pose above. Lacking any practical distinction, how does NFP not open the way to infidelity and lowering of moral standards in the exact same manner?

You can't really argue "does the Vatican approve of the type of birth control" is anywhere on the list of "things considered by potential adulterers".

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^^^^
Clearly you're missing the point. It's not about the mores of one generation versus another. It's about the fact that they simply have no standing to comment on the topic one way or the other. And they NEVER did.
OAW

Why? Are these issues so complex scientifically, or socially that they can't understand them?

In this day and age, isn't it time we drop the fallacy that you have to be intimately involved with a situation to have a valid opinion and comment on it, even though you pretty much have all the facts at hand? It's the same idea as how men aren't supposed to weigh in on the morality and validity of abortion as a "right."

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why? Are these issues so complex scientifically, or socially that they can't understand them?
In this day and age, isn't it time we drop the fallacy that you have to be intimately involved with a situation to have a valid opinion and comment on it, even though you pretty much have all the facts at hand? It's the same idea as how men aren't supposed to weigh in on the morality and validity of abortion as a "right."

Its ok to have an opinion but should it carry the same weight as an expert? Should an inexperienced opinion be an authoritative opinion? Probably not.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its ok to have an opinion but should it carry the same weight as an expert? Should an inexperienced opinion be an authoritative opinion? Probably not.

When we are dealing with pretty simple concepts involving basic humanity, I don't really think it requires an "expert." Too often, people want to either over think things or use an "appeal to experience" in order to further their own views when the "expert" doesn't really add much to the conversation.. It's entirely unnecessary.

Besides, I think that the argument is that these guys are being coached by the foremost expert on the subject, the one who invented it all. I'm not sure you get any more "expert" than that.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/smartnews/2012/07/why-experts-are-almost-always-wrong/

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

He doesn't address the contradiction, he makes it. Hence my need to probe you for your opinion in his stead.
Pope Paul VI's claim is artificial contraception will open the way to infidelity and a lowering of moral standards. How does accurate and easy-to-use NFP not open the way in the exact same manner?
The Pope makes it clear there's a theological distinction between natural and artificial means of contraception, but as natural means become as good as artificial means, there's no practical distinction.
Which leads back to the question I pose above. Lacking any practical distinction, how does NFP not open the way to infidelity and lowering of moral standards in the exact same manner?
You can't really argue "does the Vatican approve of the type of birth control" is anywhere on the list of "things considered by potential adulterers".

I have an idea. on Aug 10th, Catholic Answers Live will host Dr. Thomas Hilgers. He is the founder of the Pope Paul VI Institute. He help design the Creighton Model of NFP. You can call in and ask him. He's be better at answering your question than I will ever be able to. Dr Hilgers will be on in the first hour, 3pm PDT.

Better yet, you could call today since it's an "Open Forum" format with Tim Staples, a former Assembly of God youth minister. Patrick Coffin is the host. He wrote a book on the subject called Sex Au Naturel. I know Patrick can answer your question. He asked the very same questions you are pose now.

The number is 1-888-31-TRUTH. I'll be listening for your call.

[lpkmckenna]

The Vatican policy against birth control is laughable stupidity unworthy of serious regard.

A cursory glance at the Vatican "argument" against BC reveals nothing but empty threats, circular reasoning, and self-fulfilling "fiat" definitions.

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection

Bull-fncking-sh!t. The exact opposite is true. And the fact remains, women are better respected by men today than at any other time in history, no thanks to the church. Long before modern BC, women were told BY THEIR OWN CHURCH to submit to all sexual demands by their husbands, to "do fulfill their duty as a wife."

Let it be considered also that a dangerous weapon would thus be placed in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies. Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.

It's called "freedom of religion," and that's sufficient protection against this complaint. But it doesn't surprise me that the Catholic Church isn't quick to suggest freedom of religion as a solution to this problem, since freedom of religion was never their strong suit, to put it lightly.

Now as We noted earlier (no. 3), some people today raise the objection against this particular doctrine of the Church concerning the moral laws governing marriage, that human intelligence has both the right and responsibility to control those forces of irrational nature which come within its ambit and to direct them toward ends beneficial to man. Others ask on the same point whether it is not reasonable in so many cases to use artificial birth control if by so doing the harmony and peace of a family are better served and more suitable conditions are provided for the education of children already born. To this question We must give a clear reply. The Church is the first to praise and commend the application of human intelligence to an activity in which a rational creature such as man is so closely associated with his Creator. But she affirms that this must be done within the limits of the order of reality established by God.

This is the entire cornerstone of the Vatican's ridiculous "argument," that birth control is "unnatural." Guess what: NATURE SUCKS. Dying of polio is also part of "order of reality established by God," as is dying of cancer, going blind, being born deformed, being ripped apart while giving birth, etc. Using birth control, like every other medical advancement, is a resistance against "order of reality established by God," and thank God for that, because the misery-ridden world of suffering he bequeathed to us is proof alone that he doesn't care about us.

If therefore there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.

You haven't explained ANY moral principles, you just asserted that BC is "unnatural," which is argument by fiat definitions. It's a meaningless assertion. "Birth control is immoral because it is unnatural" is not a credible argument.

Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love.

There's that word again.

Like I said, the Vatican position on birth control is unworthy of any serious regard. It's laughable stupidity.

Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of Catholics don't give a rat's ass what the Vatican thinks about birth control, or masturbation, or homosexuality, or church culpability for predator-priests, or the role of women, and a dozen other issues. The Vatican substitutes their own faulty logic for "God's will," and are so arrogant they can't see the difference. They have been stuffing their own opinions into God's mouth for so long they can't even recognize that they are doing it.

Birth control isn't immoral. Preaching against birth control is immoral, since it is based on lies, arrogance, and stupidity.

Preaching against birth control exists on the same moral plane as preaching against mixed marriages, preaching against painkillers for women in labour, preaching against blood transfusions, preaching against cadaver study, preaching against germ theory, preaching against psychiatry, and every other religiously-inspired objection against modern medicine. Once again, religion is morally in the wrong.