“Neither the Church nor her doctrine is inconsistent when she considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period but condemns as always unlawful the use of means which directly prevent conception, even when the reasons given for the later practice may appear to be upright and serious. In reality, these two cases are completely different. In the former the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature. In the later they obstruct the natural development of the generative process. It cannot be denied that in each case the married couple, for acceptable reasons, are both perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result. But it is equally true that it is exclusively in the former case that husband and wife are ready to abstain from intercourse during the fertile period as often as for reasonable motives the birth of another child is not desirable. And when the infertile period recurs, they use their married intimacy to express their mutual love and safeguard their fidelity toward one another. In doing this they certainly give proof of a true and authentic love”
The Pope is explaining that married couples are able to naturally prevent pregnancy, and that it is acceptable in the eyes of God (it is just utilizing a method created by nature). By abstaining from sexual intercourse when the woman is fertile, a couple is able to naturally prevent the creation of a child. This is a way to plan your family accordingly and to have the number of children that you are able to properly care for.
I think this is a very necessary paragraph in the Humanae Vitae, because the Pope finally admits that it is acceptable for a couple to prevent pregnancy. While reading the Humanae Viate, I couldn’t help but immediately think about overpopulation of the earth and also an average couple trying to financially and emotionally provide for 10 plus children. Before this paragraph, it seemed if you did not want to have as many children as nature allowed that you were a bad person, and were intentionally going against the will of God. The argument made in paragraph 16 validates (for those who follow the Pope at least) the feelings of only wanting to have a few children.
The argument to only have intercourse while the woman is infertile as the only form of birth control does have benefits and consequences. In the general sense, I don’t like to alter my body with any chemical unless necessary. I’d much rather just take a quick nap to cure a headache than to take Tylenol, and I don’t enjoy nor feel that I need the effect of caffeine in pop or coffee. In that light, I can agree with idea of not changing the hormonal balance of your body. Also, individuals can have different reactions to chemicals, and I’m not sure if we completely understand all of the side effects and consequences of taking birth control pills. It makes sense that the less you chemically alter your body, the better. There are also arguments of how birth control can affect your ability to have children in the future.
Where danger lies in this argument though, is that not all women have a consistent and predictable menstruation cycle. This leaves virtually no option for those women to manage the number of children she has. With modern technology and the knowledge that we have of reproductive systems, it seems that one should take advantage of it to plan their family size accordingly. Even with some modern birth control, pregnancy is still possible, so in some sense you are not completely preventing pregnancy, you are just reducing the odds of it happening significantly. I’m not a doctor, but it seems the natural family planning would be very difficult, and also impractical for most. It leaves a small window of time during each month in which a couple could have sex without conceiving a child. Having to clearly plan out when they are able to have sex could affect the relationship. Intercourse couldn’t be as spontaneous and ironically “natural”.
I agree completely with your last paragraph. It seems as if natural family planning prevents the couple from having sex naturally. They must only have it at certain times of the month when she is infertile and who knows for sure if she actually is. There are so many women with irregular cycles that this doesn't seem to be a proactive way to not have children.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your last paragraph, I have had friends who have tried to use the natural birth control and it does take a toll on their relationships with their significant other because they are limited to a certain amount of time and not only that but your completely right, every womens body is different. It can be very difficult to watch our bodies closely and recognize slight differences to know whether or not its safe to have sex. Not only are these couples limited to a certain amount of time but they are also worrying about the what ifs. You could say I am pretty religious but I still believe its okay to use other forms of birth control, as you have stated its not taking a life away, its reducing the chances of it happening because, as we all know birth control is not 100% effective. Regardless of what we think is right or wrong, no one, not even Paul IV can say whether or not god would be mad or judge us for our actions. Maybe he some how understands?
ReplyDeleteIntriguing, I never thought to consider how the Pope attempts to make a natural occurrence into a birth preventive act. He expects the predictability of a womens menstrual cycle to be precisely measured and only in so doing does sex become acceptable without the intent of procreation. What I may consider of the Popes argument is that the act is as much artificial as any other birth control measures. Just because a couple takes advantage of a natural occurrence doesn't particularly mean that the prevention of pregnancies in that situation was itself a natural act. It was due to the the couples free will that they chose to have intercourse at that particular time and hence artificially preventing pregnancy. Hence I would say that the Popes argument on this matter is intrinsically flawed
ReplyDelete