I don’t understand why NFP (the use of human intelligence to enjoy sex and avoid pregnancy) is alright, but a diaphragm is not.
The author argues that NFP is effective, so why is it acceptable?
” - - -
The author argues that NFP is effective, so why is it acceptable? “
Because it is *natural* - as, created by G-D.
Because the sin of contraception is not the act of responsibly planning the number and spacing of our children, i.e. what is rightly called "family planning." That is not just a right but a duty.
| The sin is not in the "end" (assuming the "end" is responsibly limiting pregnancies for a good reason) but in the means. |
|
Essentially, the Church is saying you not only have to respect life, but you also have to respect sex (and in most cases, this means, respect the woman's body.) Don't shut down, alter, damage, the woman's normal sexual systems in order to have sex with a sexual neuter. It's related to the overall medical ethic, that medical techniques are supposed to be therapeutic, not anti-therapeutic. You can use drugs, devices and surgery to help things work normally, not to make them work abnormally, or stop them from working at all. Exactly the same reason you shouldn't use drugs or surgery in the futile attempt to turn a female into a male. Appreciate the way God made male and female, and cooperate with your God-given design with grace. Although they both can successfully limit pregnancies, NFP and are contraception opposites, in that the first affirms natural sexual design of the body, and the second opposes it. The are as opposite as medicine and malpractice. Or as opposite as sin and grace. |