Number of children...

[verenaerin]

Those medications don't stop the semen from getting to the egg. Birth control/ hormones do three things:


1) Suppresson of Ovulation - the pill’s hormones attempt to prevent the ovum from being released from the ovary each month.
2) Cervical Mucus Change- the cervical mucus of a woman’s body becomes thicker and more difficult for the sperm to reach the ovum.
3) Thinning of the Endometrium- the pill weakens the lining of the womb and thins it, preventing the fertilized egg from attaching (implantation).

And of course #3 is a form of abortion.

Correct. But I have to say that I really like Walty's simplistic breakdown of contraception. Because of #3 we could put BC in the category of potential abortifacients. It makes arguing the 2 topics easier.

[Walty]

Do I have to rant again?

The Church has always supported NFP, it was just called under a different name.

To put it bluntly, contraception is using a method to prevent semen from getting where it naturally goes during sex.  NFP is quite different from that.  It is a refraining from sex.  Refraining from sex is a morally licit practice so long as it done for the right reason.

By definition, refraining from sex is a morally neutral action and can only be judged on the intent, not the act itself.

Isn't this definition too narrow? How does this apply to forms of contraception such as the pill or hormone-releasing implants?

Well, I could have stated it better, but the fundamental concept remains.  The pill keeps sperm from the opportunity to meet the egg.

[verenaerin]

Do I have to rant again?

The Church has always supported NFP, it was just called under a different name.

To put it bluntly, contraception is using a method to prevent semen from getting where it naturally goes during sex.  NFP is quite different from that.  It is a refraining from sex.  Refraining from sex is a morally licit practice so long as it done for the right reason.

By definition, refraining from sex is a morally neutral action and can only be judged on the intent, not the act itself.

Isn't this definition too narrow? How does this apply to forms of contraception such as the pill or hormone-releasing implants?

Well, I could have stated it better, but the fundamental concept remains.  The pill keeps sperm from the opportunity to meet the egg.

Not necessarily. See my previous post on the 3 actions of BC

[Walty]

Do I have to rant again?

The Church has always supported NFP, it was just called under a different name.

To put it bluntly, contraception is using a method to prevent semen from getting where it naturally goes during sex.  NFP is quite different from that.  It is a refraining from sex.  Refraining from sex is a morally licit practice so long as it done for the right reason.

By definition, refraining from sex is a morally neutral action and can only be judged on the intent, not the act itself.

Isn't this definition too narrow? How does this apply to forms of contraception such as the pill or hormone-releasing implants?

Well, I could have stated it better, but the fundamental concept remains.  The pill keeps sperm from the opportunity to meet the egg.

Not necessarily. See my previous post on the 3 actions of BC

Strange, I wasn't aware such a thing existed.

However, wouldn't this technically amount to abortion and not contraception?

ETA:  OH, I see.  You're saying that #3 is an effect of the pill (or some pills?), not that it is contraception.  So you're saying that the pill may be both a form of contraception and abortion then, correct?

[verenaerin]

Do I have to rant again?

The Church has always supported NFP, it was just called under a different name.

To put it bluntly, contraception is using a method to prevent semen from getting where it naturally goes during sex.  NFP is quite different from that.  It is a refraining from sex.  Refraining from sex is a morally licit practice so long as it done for the right reason.

By definition, refraining from sex is a morally neutral action and can only be judged on the intent, not the act itself.

Isn't this definition too narrow? How does this apply to forms of contraception such as the pill or hormone-releasing implants?

Well, I could have stated it better, but the fundamental concept remains.  The pill keeps sperm from the opportunity to meet the egg.

Not necessarily. See my previous post on the 3 actions of BC

Strange, I wasn't aware such a thing existed.

However, wouldn't this technically amount to abortion and not contraception?

ETA:  OH, I see.  You're saying that #3 is an effect of the pill (or some pills?), not that it is contraception.  So you're saying that the pill may be both a form of contraception and abortion then, correct?

Yes. The pill makes a difficult environment for the sperm to travel. But not impossible, and definitely not a physical barrier. Some women when on the pill do not ovulate at all. Some do. It would be impossible to tell without blood tests (I can't think of any other way of knowing). So if an egg is released and sperm made it's way through, conception can occur. As the fertilized egg travels to the uterus it needs to implant to continue living. The last effect of the pill is to make the uterine environment hostile to implantation. So you could be on the pill and killing a baby without even knowing it.

[OCLittleFlower]

I have seen NFP touted as "acceptable birth control" for any purpose.  Including by the upper middle class couple who taught our "pre-Cana."  Talking about how they used NFP from day one and only had two children, so there was no need to worry if you simply didn't want a lot of kids.  We were then told to go off privately and discuss with our fiance/ees how many children we wanted.

I fully, 100% accept NFP -- however, I think grave matter needs to be there.  And yes, grave matter can be the fact that someone is run ragged.  And when in doubt, consult a good and holy priest. 

However, the Church has never taught that it is for any reason you can think of, no caviats.  But some pre-Cana teachers sure teach that.

[Lydia Grace]

I have seen NFP touted as "acceptable birth control" for any purpose.  Including by the upper middle class couple who taught our "pre-Cana."  Talking about how they used NFP from day one and only had two children, so there was no need to worry if you simply didn't want a lot of kids.  We were then told to go off privately and discuss with our fiance/ees how many children we wanted.

I fully, 100% accept NFP -- however, I think grave matter needs to be there.  And yes, grave matter can be the fact that someone is run ragged.  And when in doubt, consult a good and holy priest. 

However, the Church has never taught that it is for any reason you can think of, no caviats.  But some pre-Cana teachers sure teach that.

That's how I've always heard it presented also. That's the problem I have with NFP.

+1 !!

[ResiduumRevertetur]

I have seen NFP touted as "acceptable birth control" for any purpose.  Including by the upper middle class couple who taught our "pre-Cana."  Talking about how they used NFP from day one and only had two children, so there was no need to worry if you simply didn't want a lot of kids.  We were then told to go off privately and discuss with our fiance/ees how many children we wanted.

I fully, 100% accept NFP -- however, I think grave matter needs to be there.  And yes, grave matter can be the fact that someone is run ragged.  And when in doubt, consult a good and holy priest. 

However, the Church has never taught that it is for any reason you can think of, no caviats.  But some pre-Cana teachers sure teach that.

That's how I've always heard it presented also. That's the problem I have with NFP.

+1 !!

That was our experience in preCana 20 years ago, too.

[HotRod]

I have 6 so far, and #7 is on the way.  The first three were conceived during our NFP days, its harder to not have sex than it sounds.  The next 4 were conceived after we decided to stop charting altogether.

#1 girl, 10
#2 girl, 9
#3 boy, 7
#4 boy, 4
#5 boy, 3
#6 girl, 1
#7 ??, -4  mos

I've pretty much heard it all.  At least everyone at work now just accepts that I'm crazy, and no one has much more to say about it.

[Someone1776]

I have 6 so far, and #7 is on the way.  The first three were conceived during our NFP days, its harder to not have sex than it sounds.  The next 4 were conceived after we decided to stop charting altogether.

#1 girl, 10
#2 girl, 9
#3 boy, 7
#4 boy, 4
#5 boy, 3
#6 girl, 1
#7 ??, -4  mos

I've pretty much heard it all.  At least everyone at work now just accepts that I'm crazy, and no one has much more to say about it.

I am curious. Erin has argued that NFP is such a pain that for the most part only a couple with grave reasons would be willing to put up with it. Do you agree?