The Loss of Freedoms

[micro 0]

Quote

I think that you calling a teacher you've never met "shitty" is getting into some unwarranted assumptions.

Sometimes bill, I don't think you read too well...

What I said what this, verbatim and in italics...

They could have just been really shitty teachers or shitty adherants to the practice of NFP.

There is a BIG difference. But now you've ceased to debate.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

>I've known a lot of NFP teachers and have been to the Couple to
>Couple Leagues offices in Cinncinnati, where a lot of the teaching
>occurs and where they have amassed alot of data on NFP research.

I don't doubt that - but that's sort of like going to the Discovery Institude and asking for data about evolution. (Or to HairyJuan's website to get statistics about catholicism.)

Nope. Not true. If I want data on the drug Copaxone for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis, who has amassed that data? The company that makes that drug which happens to be Teva Neuroscience (my employer).

If I want data on the drug Viagra, who has amassed the preponderance of THAT data? You guessed it, PFIZER!

You have wrongly assumed that the Couple to Couple League has only amassed research that is favorable -and therefore biased- to it's method of NFP. That is incorrect. If you were to go there for yourself, you'd see this.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[billvon 3,010]

>If he were a devout catholic, he wouldn't have developed something
> that divorces the unitive and procreative meaning of intercourse.

NFP (back then, the rhythm method) divorces the unitive and procreative meaning of intercourse; he felt he was simply extending the times when the rhythm method worked. He was suprised when the church "ruled against him" so to speak.

>Concraception has been verboten in the Church for ages.

NFP is contraception; it's merely time-based instead of barrier-based or hormone-based.

[micro 0]

Quote

>If he were a devout catholic, he wouldn't have developed something
> that divorces the unitive and procreative meaning of intercourse.

NFP (back then, the rhythm method) divorces the unitive and procreative meaning of intercourse; he felt he was simply extending the times when the rhythm method worked. He was suprised when the church "ruled against him" so to speak.

>Concraception has been verboten in the Church for ages.

NFP is contraception; it's merely time-based instead of barrier-based or hormone-based.

NO NFP is NOT contraception. That is a fallacy. They are NOT the same, not in the least! If you followed your logic through to it's conclusion is that a couple could only have sex when the female is in estrous.

In the case of artificial contraception, the couple is deliberately doing something to thwart the natural, procreative capacity of either hte maile or the female in their actions while engaging in intercourse. Therein lies the "sin" according to the church.

In NFP, the couple is not acting when there is a possibility of conception and the couple, with sufficient reason, wishes to avoid conception. There is no "sin" in NOT acting. When the couple DOES engage in intercourse, the are NOT doing ANYTHING to deliberately withold any lifegiving possibility in the marital act. The woman has not withheld her egg (as if she could voluntarily do that anyway) and the man has not voluntarily withheld his sperm. There is still, at root, an openness to life. That is the difference.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[GTAVercetti 0]

con·tra·cep·tion Pronunciation (kntr-spshn)
n.
Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures

It just so happens that the church approves of it because the body goes through natural cycles. But you are still AVOIDING the times in those cycles when pregnancy has the greatest chance.

Look at the word itself:

contraception

contra - against
ception - shortened form of conception.

contraception = against conception.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Lindsey 0]

(kntr-spshn)

I don't know if I can say that....

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

con·tra·cep·tion Pronunciation (kntr-spshn)
n.
Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures

FAITH is the belief in something in the face of facts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[micro 0]

Quote

con·tra·cep·tion Pronunciation (kntr-spshn)
n.
Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures

But NFP works just as well to GET pregnant as to avoid pregnancy. AND it doesn't seperate the UNITIVE and PROCREATIVE aspects of sex, as taught by the Catholic church. In that aspect, it is NOT the same as artificial contraception.

Just to clarify.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

con·tra·cep·tion Pronunciation (kntr-spshn)
n.
Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures

FAITH is the belief in something in the face of facts.

Don't start John. We're having a nice little debate w/o you adding barbs.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

con·tra·cep·tion Pronunciation (kntr-spshn)
n.
Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures

FAITH is the belief in something in the face of facts.

Don't start John. We're having a nice little debate w/o you adding barbs.

Just ignore it.

Anyway, no one said that artificial and natural conception are the same. What was said is that NFP IS contraception. It is just more agreeable to the church.

Let's break it down by comparing condoms to NFP:

Accidental:

condom - You can still get pregnant even if you use a condom.
NFP - You can still get pregnant if you practice NFP.

Purposefully:

condom - want to get pregnant? Don't use a condom at that time and try to have sex at a good time in the cycle
NFP - want to get pregnant? Have sex at a different point in the cycle.

Take out the type of birth control and you find that they are quite similar. Both have you make a WILLFUL choice to attempt to avoid pregnancy or incur pregnancy.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,010]

>NO NFP is NOT contraception.

Of course it is. It lets you have sex without getting pregnant. That's what contraception is.

>There is no "sin" in NOT acting.

There is no sin in having sex with your wife no matter what means of contraception you use - NFP, barrier or hormonal. You use the brain god gave you to allow you to have recreational sex while lowering the risk of unwanted pregnancy.

NFP meets every definition of contraception there is. The big issue (to me) is whether you use contraception - not the details of it.

>There is still, at root, an openness to life.

And condoms can break; everyone knows that. Thus condom users are open to life too.

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

Quote

Quote

con·tra·cep·tion Pronunciation (kntr-spshn)
n.
Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures

FAITH is the belief in something in the face of facts.

Don't start John. We're having a nice little debate w/o you adding barbs.

Your entire argument at this point is based on your re-definition of a word in the English language to suit your position. That is something you do repeatedly in this forum.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Seriously John, we are actually having a pretty good discussion. You and micro makes each other mad. We get that.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

Seriously John, we are actually having a pretty good discussion. You and micro makes each other mad. We get that.

I'm not mad, just pointing out his modus operandi. You can't possibly have a rational debate if one of you refuses to use the dictionary definition of the word you are arguing about. You are just wasting bandwidth.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Seriously John, we are actually having a pretty good discussion. You and micro makes each other mad. We get that.

I'm not mad, just pointing out his modus operandi. You can't possibly have a rational debate if one of you refuses to use the dictionary definition of the word you are arguing about. You are just wasting bandwidth.

I corrected him on it. And you notice how I did it without trying to insult him?

I l find that people can be very rational if I don't treat them like children. Even if I am pointing out that they are wrong.

And wasting bandwidth? Isn't that what MOST of this site is anyway?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Your entire argument at this point is based on your re-definition of a word in the English language to suit your position. .

Evidently he is not the only one:

YOU:FAITH is the belief in something in the face of facts

WEBSTER: Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

steveOrino

[kallend 2,034]

Quote

I l find that people can be very rational if I don't treat them like children. Even if I am pointing out that they are wrong.

And wasting bandwidth? Isn't that what MOST of this site is anyway?

But there's nothing rational about religious beliefs. You might as well argue with a brick wall.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

If you think you can learn nothing from those who are religious just because they subscribe to something you have no FAITH in, I feel sorry for you.

You may not become a believer, but there is always something to learn in the process.

For instance, in this debate, I looked up alot of information about STDs, NFP, and birth control to supplement my knowledge.

Do I think I will change micro's mind? Not a chance, but the very act of debate flexes my mind and helped me learn more.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Heck, one of the people that developed the birth-control pill did it so that catholics woul have another "natural" option for birth control!

Explain this statement please. B/c the way I read what you wrote. there isn't a damned thing "natural" about taking a "pill" (although the woman isn't sick!) to prevent something natural from occuring in her body! Artificial birth control is one of the most unnatural things one can do to the human body, putting it in such a hormonal state.

I remember this being debated in my high school biology class. When someone pointed out that periodic, selective abstinence was a natural method of birth control, the teacher said that there was nothing natural about it: it meant ignoring one of the most powerful drives of nature, akin to the drive to eat and drink. Thus, he said, so-called "artificial" methods of birth control are more "natural" than abstinence is, since it allows you to do what comes naturally.

Seemed logical to me then. Still does now.

I don't see how selective abstinence is any more a natural thing to do than fasting is.

By the way, the real meaning of NFP is "no fucking, please." Nothing natural about that.

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Heck, one of the people that developed the birth-control pill did it so that catholics woul have another "natural" option for birth control!

Explain this statement please. B/c the way I read what you wrote. there isn't a damned thing "natural" about taking a "pill" (although the woman isn't sick!) to prevent something natural from occuring in her body! Artificial birth control is one of the most unnatural things one can do to the human body, putting it in such a hormonal state.

I remember this being debated in my high school biology class. When someone pointed out that periodic, selective abstinence was a natural method of birth control, the teacher said that there was nothing natural about it: it meant ignoring one of the most powerful drives of nature, akin to the drive to eat and drink. Thus, he said, so-called "artificial" methods of birth control are more "natural" than abstinence is, since it allows you to do what comes naturally.

Seemed logical to me then. Still does now.

I don't see how selective abstinence is any more a natural thing to do than fasting is.

By the way, the real meaning of NFP is "no fucking, please." Nothing natural about that.

If you use this logic, then you MUST satisfy your every urge EVERY time they occur. You want a cheeseburger, you must have one. You want to fuck, you must fuck. That argument reduces you to nothing more than a base animal with no volitional will at all. If that's what you believe about humans, well, there's not much sense in debating.

There are many reasons for NOT having sex. I may want it -badly for some reason- but my wife may have an illness. Do I take her by force b/c I "need" to fuck? Of course not. The examples here could be endless.

Do you always eat every time you're hungry? No. It's not always prudent nor possible.

I'm afraid your biology teacher was misguided to say that ARTIFICIAL birht control was somehow more "natural" than NFP. That is the most backwards thing I've ever heard.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[micro 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

con·tra·cep·tion Pronunciation (kntr-spshn)
n.
Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures

FAITH is the belief in something in the face of facts.

Don't start John. We're having a nice little debate w/o you adding barbs.

Your entire argument at this point is based on your re-definition of a word in the English language to suit your position. That is something you do repeatedly in this forum.

John. Do me a favor. You always accuse me of trying to bend definitions to suit my argument. You are a smart guy. Do your own research into the differences b/t NFP and artificial birth control. Being in Chicago, there are many good Catholic resources at your disposal. There really is a difference and I'm not playing semantic games. I've tried to elucidate that in this thread. If I fail to an adequate job, so be it. My original intent was to argue how NFP was vastly different in kind from artifitial forms of contraception. While it's possible to have a contraceptive mentality w/ NFP, there still, at root, is an openess to life FUNDAMENTALLY b/c the couple IS NOT DOING ANYTHING to thwart the possibility of conception. There can still be breakthrough ovulation in spite of signs of fertility. It happens and this fact is recognized in NFP literature. The male is not WITHOLDING seed from the woman by the use of a barrier and the woman is not trying to withold her egg by using chemical barriers. The sexual act is NOT STAINED by artificial means and each partner is still giving THERE ENTIRE BEING to the act. THIS is the fundamental difference b/t NFP sex and sex using artificial contraception. There IS no seperation b/t the unitive and procreative aspect.
There is a clear distinction and it has been widely and more eruditely elucidated by folks than me.

I refer you to the likes of Janet Smith, PhD, Christopher West, John Paul II, etc... for a more thorough and cogent analysis b/t the two.

I miss Lee.
And JP.
And Chris. And...

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

The sexual act is NOT STAINED by artificial means and each partner is still giving THERE ENTIRE BEING to the act. THIS is the fundamental difference b/t NFP sex and sex using artificial contraception. There IS no seperation b/t the unitive and procreative aspect.

Why would that be important to someone who believes that sex is, in fact, a biological act, and not a spiritual one?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

is an openess to life FUNDAMENTALLY b/c the couple IS NOT DOING ANYTHING to thwart the possibility of conception.

Sorry dude, but when you purposefully choose to engage in intercourse when you know fertility to be low, then you ARE doing something to avoid conception. You are taking steps to reduce the risk of pregnancy. Yes, there is a chance that you can still get pregnant, but it is the same with condoms. You are just using the bodies rhythms to decrease chances instead of a plastic barrier or a pill. But you are trying to decrease it nonetheless.

I believe John has made you lose focus on the fact that I already wrote this point. And now it is time for me to go home.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,010]

> The sexual act is NOT STAINED by artificial means and each
> partner is still giving THERE ENTIRE BEING to the act.

. . . unless her mucus is the wrong consistency, in which each partner gives each other a big fat zero.

Every method of birth control has its pluses and minuses. The "amount of being one gives to the act" might have significance to you, and that's great - you've clearly chosen the right method for you. That may not be a consideration for other people.

Sex is one of the more private acts we perform with each other, and I'd hesitate to claim that someone else's decisions on it were wrong (i.e. "stained" or "divisive") because I preferred a different method.

[jenfly00 0]

Quote

If you think you can learn nothing from those who are religious just because they subscribe to something you have no FAITH in, I feel sorry for you.

You may not become a believer, but there is always something to learn in the process.

For instance, in this debate, I looked up alot of information about STDs, NFP, and birth control to supplement my knowledge.

Do I think I will change micro's mind? Not a chance, but the very act of debate flexes my mind and helped me learn more.

Agreed! There was much to be learned about the passive dishonesty of blindly following religious dogma.

-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".