And thanks for taking this topic seriously.
"... (a man using withdrawal) accomplishes the same result (or tries to) as a man who only has sex with his wife when she is not ovulating and is infertile."
Yes, if the men don't impregnate their wives, they're getting there same result. However, I hope you realize that
(1) Levirate obligation aside, not having babies is not, in itself, a sin (I'm sitting here not having babies right now) --
(2) so I undertook to morally evaluate the other element of Onan's behavior: not the end (no pregnancy) but the means (intentionally impairing the natural fertility of the sex act, i.e., contraception.)
My argument was not that intending no baby is wrong, but the WAY he did it was wrong. Are you getting that?
"Additionally, neither Judah nor Shelah were punished by God for their refusal. Judah, though, DID get drunk and Tamar slept with him (her father-in-law) and she conceived. God did not kill Judah for the sin of sex outside of marriage with his own daughter-in-law."
LOL --- it's actually weirder than that! Tamar is actually praised by Judah for being more righteous than himself (Gen. 38:26) ; her accomplishment is celebrated even generations later as a famous blessing (Ruth 4:12); and Tamar's one of only four female ancestors of Jesus given honorable mention in Matthew's genealogy (Matt. 1:3). There's an excellent reason for this: what she did was considered virtuous.
I did a BUNCH of research on this and related issues. I would be very pleased, really, if you would read what I wrote about it: http://www.wf-f.org/12-1-Wiley.html It was a fun article to write, and I think you'll find it a fun article to read.
(Authorial eyebrows darting up and down.)
On your last point: yes, I agree that Onan probably was not the first contraceptor, just the first one mentioned in the Bible. I am reasonably convinced that the prophets of Israel didn't do much inveighing against contraception, since for the most part it would have been seen as insane, as well as disgusting. It would be like the frequent reiteration of commandments against rolling in sheep dung: no sh*t, Shadrach!
As I mentioned before, the multiple, robust, and unified testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures is that the blessing for the womb is fertility; the curse is barrenness.
That's one reason why it's false to say all of Christianity (until 1930, anyway) was basing "an entire doctrine on a small piece of evidence." The evidence that sex is, by God's intent and by His intricate design, an inherently unitive and procreative act, goes straight through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.
To say the evidence of this is "small," is like the Gay Christian apologists who say that there's only a few lines in the Bible against male-on-male sex, and that's -- they say --- all about male cult prostitution, not about homosexuality itself --- and if homosexual conduct in itself were so bad, Jesus would have mentioned it. But He didn't: not even once.
This gay argument is not valid, because while Jesus didn't say a lot about homosexuality, He did say significant things about the nature of marriage; He did not repudiate the millennia-long unanimous Hebrew moral view about sex and fruitfulness; and He instructed and inspired St. Paul who reflected and amplified the selfsame moral view of marriage in his Epistles.
There are a lot of things we know from a correct sense of the goodness of God's Creation, which expand on moral principles in Scripture. The Scriptural prohibition of pharmakeia condemns the harmful use of any drug: we don't need a special commandment "Thou shalt not inject endocrine disruptors to impair thy normal physiological function." The Scriptural prohibition of porneia condemns any unnatural sex practice: we don't need a special commandment "Thou shalt not insert thy semen up somebody's butt, down their throat, or into thy little latex baggie."
This is not an exclusively "Catholic" thing. All Christians saw Scriptural morality this way until very, very recently. The huge abandonment of this aspect of Scriptural morality came in my mother's lifetime.
The next innovation is going to be the beaming Christian OK on gay sex: and that is already WELL underway. (500,000 Links, anyone?)
"Natural Family Planning (NFP) has the same negative intent as other types of birth control such as withdrawal or barrier methods."
As I said before --- and I don't mind saying it again! --- intending "no babies right now, please" is not a negative or evil intent. It is an intent that COULD be evil (e.g. if it's motivated by selfishness), or COULD be good (e.g. if it's motivated by protecting the mother's life or health, or in cases of economic hardship and so forth.) Limiting pregnancies can even be a grave moral duty.
It's not the intent of limiting pregnancy (in itself) that's a sin. Do you get that?
As for Onan, Scripture says that EVERY time he went into Tamar, he did this act. You have to ask why God didn't off him the FIRST time if it was the act, itself, which was the crime? I think Scripture teaches that Onan's sin was in NEVER intending to fulfill his tribal obligation to his dead brother and he was only interested in using Tamar like a prostitute rather than a full fledged wife. It says it right there in Genesis 38:9, "But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother." It was a pattern that dishonored his heritage, not, I believe, the actual act of withdrawal, that displeased the Lord.
You asked:
As I said before --- and I don't mind saying it again! --- intending "no babies right now, please" is not a negative or evil intent. It is an intent that COULD be evil (e.g. if it's motivated by selfishness), or COULD be good (e.g. if it's motivated by protecting the mother's life or health, or in cases of economic hardship and so forth.) Limiting pregnancies can even be a grave moral duty. It's not the intent of limiting pregnancy (in itself) that's a sin. Do you get that?
I wonder if you get that "limiting pregnancy" for grave or other moral duty is an issue that each couple should decide for themselves between them and God and which is not the duty of their church to make this determination for them with blanket verdicts which do not take into consideration the responsibilities of each couple? It boils down to the method of this limiting of pregnancy and whether or not it causes death, which would be a grave moral wrong.
We agree, I believe, that some birth control methods have as their primary or secondary purpose to prevent implantation of an embryo (which IS a human life self-contained) and expel, or abort, this new life. These include the IUD as well as hormones in pills, implants and injections. Other methods such as the diaprahm, condoms and other barrier types do not directly or indirectly kill new human life. They work to prevent fertilization from happening at all, some more successful than others. My sense is that couples, as their own consciences dictates between them and God should have use of these methods without condemnation from others. NFP is in essence not different from other barrier methods OR withdrawal because, while they seek to limit pregnancy, they do not cause the death of new human life.
One last thought...very, very few methods can guarantee 100% prevention of pregnancy, I know people who became pregnant while faithfully using the BC pill as well as one who had a vasectomy and fathered TWO sons afterward. If a couple decides to use a method that doesn't cause human death in helping them control pregnancy responsibly and in prayerful consideration with God, they should have that freedom to determine for themselves what is best for them. Should pregnancy happen in spite of their attempts, then part of that decision is one of welcoming whatever is God's will for their family and a joyous acceptance of the child into the family as a blessing from God. I do not believe there is ANY justification for aborting a child other than an imminent threat to the mother's life should the pregnancy continue - in which case BOTH would die.
I respect your right to hold to the beliefs you do and appreciate all you do to reinforce a respectful and polite exchange of thoughts and opinions on this forum.