Abortion!

[Arrian]

The difference between abstinence, in abstaining from sex when you are fertile, and contraception, is that contraception allows you to have the unitive aspect of sex without the procreative. Now you can argue that having sex when you know the woman is not fertile is under the same motivations...

Clearly! You don't see that?

You would not abstain, because you believe that sex is simply for pleasure.

Correction: you would not abstain, because you do not believe sex is only for procreation (it's also for pleasure).

It's on the website. Very reliable actually, but the trouble is that the method works for married couples who invest the time, unlike condoms which require no investment.

Oh, I see. It's like the Protestant work ethic. If you don't have to invest time in it, it's not a valid method of avoiding pregnacy. Condoms are easy and therefore immoral. You kill me. What about the pill, btw? It's more effective (as a pure contraceptive) than condoms (both together are obviously the *most* effective). I guess it's "easy" too, and thus BAD.

Second nitpick: you say married couples who invest the time. I don't see any reason to believe it wouldn't work just as well for unmarried couples who invest the time. Of course, that's sinful and bad, but it would still work.

...end up saying that the only purpose of sex is procreation. Which is not the case.

How enlightened of you. Bravo.

We require research because we have forgotten these things. This knowledge isn't new, nor is it all that complicated. It has been forgotten and cast aside because of the times in which we live.

Oh, please It's been case aside because there are easier and more reliable methods.

-Arrian

[Odin]

If you want to reduce the number of abortions than give people proper sex-ed and not some abstinence-only BS. Banning abortions won't stop abortions, it will just drive it underground and you end up with dead moms as well.

Oh, Ben, quit using the Aquinas-based logic behind birth control being bad, Aquinasian Natural Law is full of sh*t.

[Ming]

Ben Kenobi
Catholic teachings are not open to disagreement.
While some may argue "interpretation"... once the chuch has taken a position...

Absolute and total obiedence to Catholic doctrine is required. You are not allowed to pick and choose. As I said, many feel that they can and actually do so... while still actively participating... but they are wrong/sinning based on the view of the Church. The church may turn a blind eye on some issues on a region by region basis. American Catholics are far more liberal than others, and their priests walk a thin line.... but in the eyes of Rome, they are sinning.

[Ben Kenobi]

Correction: you would not abstain, because you do not believe sex is only for procreation (it's also for pleasure).

If sex is for procreation why wear a condom while she is fertile?

Oh, I see. It's like the Protestant work ethic. If you don't have to invest time in it, it's not a valid method of avoiding pregnacy. Condoms are easy and therefore immoral.

It was a caveat, like when folks say condoms are effective if used properly.

Of course I have to admit my own bias favours this 'protestant work ethic' which must seem rather humourous given the topic.

You kill me. What about the pill, btw? It's more effective (as a pure contraceptive) than condoms (both together are obviously the *most* effective). I guess it's "easy" too, and thus BAD.

Same thing as the condoms. I can't see any reason to make a moral distinction between condoms and the pill.

Second nitpick: you say married couples who invest the time. I don't see any reason to believe it wouldn't work just as well for unmarried couples who invest the time. Of course, that's sinful and bad, but it would still work.

Okay, let me ask you this. You and your partner are close enough to each other to do several things.

1. abstain from sex while she is fertile
2. her to communicate to you the status of her mucus

Read through the method and ask yourself if you are an unmarried lady whether you would be willing to do all these things for a partner that you have not committed yourself?

[Ben Kenobi]

Absolute and total obiedence to Catholic doctrine is required. You are not allowed to pick and choose. As I said, many feel that they can and actually do so... while still actively participating... but they are wrong/sinning based on the view of the Church. The church may turn a blind eye on some issues on a region by region basis. American Catholics are far more liberal than others, and their priests walk a thin line.... but in the eyes of Rome, they are sinning.

I agree, those issues that you are referring to, I think I've listed those under the non-negotiables. Contraception, female priests, all of these are points where the liberal clergy has decided to differ from Catholic doctrine.

However, the issues I am thinking of are things like the death penalty, and just war doctrine.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

If we follow your logic, then it is sinful to have sex outside of the women's fertile period, and you end up saying that the only purpose of sex is procreation. Which is not the case. Therefore we must conclude that it is not sinful to have sex outside of a woman's fertile period.

And that it is not sinful to use a condom. If it were anyone else other than you, Ben, I'd be surprised by the lack of ability to see the circular logic.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I agree, those issues that you are referring to, I think I've listed those under the non-negotiables. Contraception, female priests, all of these are points where the liberal clergy has decided to differ from Catholic doctrine.

However, the issues I am thinking of are things like the death penalty, and just war doctrine.

These are non-negotiable as well in the eyes of Rome.

However, many feel that they are, but that doesn't make them right in the view of the Church.

[Arrian]

If sex is for procreation why wear a condom while she is fertile?

Are you being intentionally dense? I'm asserting that sex has more than one purpose. It is pleasureable and it can result in procreation.

If you are ok with humans having some choice in the matter, I cannot understand why it matters whether it involves timing, a pill or a rubber.

Read through the method and ask yourself if you are an unmarried lady whether you would be willing to do all these things for a partner that you have not committed yourself?

Perhaps you are committed, but simply aren't married. Call it "functionally married." My life with my wife hasn't changed a bit since we were formally married (by a JP, of course ). There are reasons why a couple might decide against marriage, but yet be quite committed to one another. The woman who is currently sitting about 10 feet to my right has been with her... "boyfriend?" for something like 10 years and they never intend to get married. Yet they could certainly use this "Billings Method" (to the extent they trusted it).

So, Ben: why is birth control bad?

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

And that it is not sinful to use a condom. If it were anyone else other than you, Ben, I'd be surprised by the lack of ability to see the circular logic.

Excellent point!

There is a significant difference between the two. You do not have control over these fertile periods. The only thing you have control over is whether you have sex during them or not.

Now, we know that it is not sinful to have sex during her infertile periods, because husbands have a duty to their wives, as wives do to their husbands. The husband cannot change the cycles. Even if the wife wanted to get pregnant, and her husband wanted her to get pregnant she could not change this fact.

A condom is a little different. You slip it on, and you are saying, I don't care about the cycles. I want the control over the outcome. You could not say that you are open to having the child, because you have made the decision to avoid one.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you are ok with humans having some choice in the matter, I cannot understand why it matters whether it involves timing, a pill or a rubber.

I am okay with having the choice you always have, to have sex or not have sex.

Perhaps you are committed, but simply aren't married. Call it "functionally married." My life with my wife hasn't changed a bit since we were formally married (by a JP, of course ).

Does she feel the same as you, that nothing has changed?

There are reasons why a couple might decide against marriage, but yet be quite committed to one another. The woman who is currently sitting about 10 feet to my right has been with her... "boyfriend?" for something like 10 years and they never intend to get married. Yet they could certainly use this "Billings Method" (to the extent they trusted it).

True, they certainly could. The primary question is one of trust and cooperation. I have seen some couples like that who are that close but for other reasons, have chosen not to get married. It's a real shame, because usually they have been hurt by divorce, either to them, or to someone in their family like their parents.

[Arrian]

But we CAN change the cycles. It's called "the Pill." And it rocks.

I'll do my husbandly duty whenever I can, thanks very much. Between work, taking care of the dog (we don't even have kids!), and the rest of life, it's amazingly easy to find yourself thinking "when did we last do it?"

Do you know how contrived it feels when sex is something you plan out on a calendar, Ben? Of course you don't. Lemme tell ya: I'll take it, and all, but it sure messes with the mood.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

I am okay with having the choice you always have, to have sex or not have sex.

Good for you. Leave the rest of us alone.

Does she feel the same as you, that nothing has changed?

Yes.

It's a real shame, because usually they have been hurt by divorce, either to them, or to someone in their family like their parents.

Oh, the poor broken people who don't see things my way! Perhaps they're scarred by the rantings of religious nutbags about sin and such and want to just avoid marriage altogether.

Secondly, there seem to be plenty of married people with trust issues.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

I'll do my husbandly duty whenever I can, thanks very much. Between work, taking care of the dog (we don't even have kids!), and the rest of life, it's amazingly easy to find yourself thinking "when did we last do it?"

Do you know how contrived it feels when sex is something you plan out on a calendar, Ben? Of course you don't. Lemme tell ya: I'll take it, and all, but it sure messes with the mood.

I can't say I've had that pleasure to be able to roll over and have someone on the other side of the bed.

As for spontaneity, do you think I disagree with these sentiments? I defend natural family planning because the church says this is ok. It certainly is not a requirement for a couple that is willing to forgo planning altogether.

The thing that puzzles me most is the boredom aspect. How could someone get bored with sex?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Excellent point!

There is a significant difference between the two. You do not have control over these fertile periods. The only thing you have control over is whether you have sex during them or not.

Now, we know that it is not sinful to have sex during her infertile periods, because husbands have a duty to their wives, as wives do to their husbands. The husband cannot change the cycles. Even if the wife wanted to get pregnant, and her husband wanted her to get pregnant she could not change this fact.

A condom is a little different. You slip it on, and you are saying, I don't care about the cycles. I want the control over the outcome. You could not say that you are open to having the child, because you have made the decision to avoid one.

Seriously, my brain hurts reading your tortured logic.

If you are using the billings method to actively avoid getting pregnant, you are also saying that you care about the outcome and that you are not open to having a child. The only way your position would make sense is if you didn't actively monitor cycles, had sex whenever you wanted and were totally fine with the possibility of pregnancy.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, the poor broken people who don't see things my way! Perhaps they're scarred by the rantings of religious nutbags about sin and such and want to just avoid marriage altogether.

Secondly, there seem to be plenty of married people with trust issues.

Agreed wholeheartedly. Trust issues don't go away just because you get married. As for my observations on divorce, they are my observations. I haven't met this couple, just that the couples I have known divorce was a big issue for them to hold off on marriage.