Aright. So this issue has been sitting on my conscience forever and i think it's time it gets brought up and dealt with once and for all. i didn't want to bring it up here because i was worried about starting a fight or whatever.
I object morally to the contraceptive aspect of Natural Family Planning; that being that the couple actively determines when they are infertile and has sex only during that time with the clear intent of having relations while avoiding procreation. Which as you might suspect, i see no difference between that and any other method of contracepting.
I suppose it's important to bring up the reason behind why the act/intent of contracepting is wrong in the first place. There are obviously a whole bunch of them:
1-The chemical dangers of the birth control pill or other medical methods
2-The abortive aspect of the pill
3-It takes "Total" out of the equation of free, faithful total fruitful.
4-It subordinates the primary practical purpose of the sexual act (Procreation), necessarily making it into a self-gratifying lustful act.
When i am making my objection to NFP i am doing under reason #4 as to why contracepting
is wrong, because that reason is the most universal and profound, and the one we ought to default to.
It's more or less obvious that NFP dodges the bullets of those other reasons why contracepting is immoral, but i argue that doesn't really matter given the fact that it fails to overcome the most important reason against contraception.
There are some good counterarguments to my view that i wish to address.
1. "NFP used to contracept is morally exceptional because the fact that there naturally exists an infertile time of the month means that God wants us to make use of that infertile period as a blessing."
This is a rather tempting argument i must say. However i feel one problem with it is that it simply jumps that assumption (God must think it's okay because it naturally occurs that way) without proper warrant. It could be correct but i'm not comfortable with the idea that we can simply on our own assume the reason for why things are they way they are.
In fact I am aware of at least one abuse of this reasoning that atheists often have used against us; "Masturbation must be okay because God gave us a sex drive Plus arms long enough to reach done there." Im sure none of you are convinced by that interpretation, but how is that any different from the one justifying NFP?
Then there's a variation of this argument that says that using NFP to contracept is permissible because the couple is not ACTIVELY going out of their way to prevent pregnancy while having sex. They are simply taking advantage of what was naturally handed to them.
I feel the simple problem with this is that whether something is passive or active doesn't change the good or evil intent behind it.
For Example: I'm sure none of you think that its okay to let your baby starve to death since you didn't ACTIVELY do something to kill it. We all agree that what matters is the INTENT, and that whether passive, or active, it is still the same
The next counterargument Is that taking away the option to contracept by means of NFP would present us with a stressful and impractical situation where couples can't express their marriage vows and enhance their bond very often because they may get pregnant at a time in their lives when they probably shouldn't.
I'm not gonna stand here and deny that this may be the case, i'll simply state the fact that this begs the question; "Does such a tough situation justify what is in fact a contraceptive act?"
Maybe it does justify it and i am wide open to that idea, but just realize that that's necessarily what you are entailing.
Given that that you would in fact be justifying a contraceptive-type act, such as NFP, wouldn't this also simply justify all the other artificial methods of contraception as well?
Lastly some side note clarification about my stance:
I am NOT saying you simply CANT have sex during infertile times, Im simply saying you can't go actively looking for them WHILE bringing with you the intent to have sex yet avoid conception.
I am ALSO NOT saying everyone needs to have 25 kids. You can have few kids as you want, and you can also have as MUCH sex as you want, i am saying you just can't actively do one while dodging the other.
I would like to speak to the point of using NFP to prevent pregnancy during times that it is not in the couple's best interest to conceive. Let's say, for instance, that the woman had to have a C-section in delivering her last child. Typically, doctors advise a 2 year time period of waiting to conceive again because the woman's body needs that amount of time to fully heal and not risk her own life or the life of her unborn child. This is a perfect example of when to use NFP to prevent pregnancy and why God has given us this natural ability. There are a lot of reasons a couple may choose to use NFP to prevent pregnancy and it all comes down to discernment. I think that is the key reason why NFP is more than just contraception by natural means: it requires a communicative discernment and prayer experience between a couple that is not found through birth control. The pill and other means are birth CONTROL, while NFP is birth DISCERNMENT using prayerful reasons.
ReplyDeleteThat's Nate's point though... If NFP is a form of contraception that is acceptable, this why aren't condoms? Or other non-harfull contraceptives?
DeleteThe logic does not follow that one is bad and the other is good when they're exactly the same thing.
And if the 'natural' thing is the only difference, use sheep's skin condoms, usually meant for those allergic to latex.
To both of you:
ReplyDeleteMatt: Thanks for catching on to the point i've been trying to make. Yet however i have come to realize a notable difference between NFP and other contraceptives that will make it so that one is okay in this severe circumstance (Only) while the others aren't. stay tuned.
McKenzie: After i took a break with my own logic engine which led to this article, i finally went after the Church's actual historical teachings on this.
Eventually i found out that i was right all along EXCEPT that the Church does allow NFP to be used in serious exceptional situations just like the one you talked about. So you are pretty much correct. Just keep in mind that this is only an EXCEPTION. As a RULE, use of NFP is not acceptable. This is where the discernment part comes in as you had mentioned.
In what way can NFP be allowed in severe exceptional circumstances while artificial contraceptives are Not??
One thing i realized that i don't think i had mentioned is that NFP really boils down to being "Passive Contraception," as opposed to basically every other contraception which is Active.
At first, Passive and Active don't really have a moral difference. intentionally Letting someone die isn't really better than murdering them.
However, in the severe circumstance that it for example is okay to pull the plug and let someone die (An issue of its own), Passive killing is okay in this case.
However, do you think in this case you can also say, "He's gonna die anyway, lets just kill him and put him out of his misery."?
Now you are switching from Passive to Active.
I think this helps us see the notable difference between NFP and Active Contraception.
I think the point is discernment, though. That's the difference and the moral premise of using NFP over artificial contraception. NFP is having couples approach sex with the idea of "how many children have You called us to have?" And "how can we glorify You with our sexual union or our abstention?" With birth control, since it is taking the "total" out of the union, contaminates it and makes it not about prayer, discernment, and God, but instead about selfishly using one another. Let's also not forget that you can use NFP to conceive children, not just prevent them, which is another special element of that method over birth control. When women go to fertility doctors because they are struggling to get pregnant, they often prescribe a regimen a lot like NFP to help them.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if you've read this article, Nate, but it brings up what I think are a lot of great points about this. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/sexuality-contraception/birth-control-and-nfp-whats-the-difference/