Absitence, the only option

[1.61803399]

In the Abortion Is Murdre thread I stated the following as a reason why churches might not be promoting contraception to reduce the number of abortions. This is the RCC position, briefly stated and without explanation:


The only moral way to prevent conception is to abstain. (the two-fold purpose of the marriage act, unitive and procreative, both must be maintained)

As at least one person has shown in intrest in discussing this statement (and I apologize for its bluntness, I was sick when I posted it), I have created this thread to do so.

chris

[Aletheia]

Absitence? :huh:




Sorry, I couldn't resist being the spelling nazi at least once. :teeth:

[James Peter]

Why should the purpose of marriage be defined so narrowly though? If it is to serve as a reflection of the relationship between God and his people (i.e. Christ and his Church) then surely it should be so much more than 'unitive and procreative'?

I'm not denying that those are two functions of marriage, but I would certainly suggest that marriage is much more than those two functions.

[1.61803399]

Why should the purpose of marriage be defined so narrowly though? If it is to serve as a reflection of the relationship between God and his people (i.e. Christ and his Church) then surely it should be so much more than 'unitive and procreative'?

I'm not denying that those are two functions of marriage, but I would certainly suggest that marriage is much more than those two functions.

What else would you add as a pupose for the marriage act? There is more to marriage than the act, I admit. That is why a Catholic couple is allowed to withhold themselves to prevent conception.

chris

[HerodionRomulus]

Should the marriage end after menopause?
Should we forbid marriage if one party cannot reproduce?
Of course not. Marriage is two people choosing the unite their lives into one life. What they do thereafter is between themselves and is not the province of some unnatural (celibate) man.

Forgive the slight rant, but the RCC just exemplifies the worst of WesternCiv's perverted and sick obsession with sex and it's anathemas for all things natural.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

There is no clear mandate from God, in Scripture or anywhere else, that every sexual act must be done with the intention of impregnation.

I agree that if a person wants to have a sexaul relationship without having the committments of family that go with it, then - aside from obvious or serious medical reasons - that is wrong. I also agree that many Christians use forms of birth control that are wrong, e.g. many of them are not yet aware that both types of contraceptive pill (not the morning after pill, I mean the mini pill and the combined pill) do, on occasion, destroy a conceptus.

But the burden of proof rests squarely with those who want to maintain that God forbids contraception.

[1.61803399]

Should the marriage end after menopause?
Should we forbid marriage if one party cannot reproduce?
Of course not. Marriage is two people choosing the unite their lives into one life. What they do thereafter is between themselves and is not the province of some unnatural (celibate) man.

Forgive the slight rant, but the RCC just exemplifies the worst of WesternCiv's perverted and sick obsession with and it's anathemas for all things natural.

No, because there is more to marriage than the act, and the act itself has two purposes.
Whatever they do is between them and God.

I find it intresting that you, who accuse the Church of being "perverted" and having a "sick obsession with ", are hung up on celibacy. The celibate state is adovcated for by Jesus and Paul, and is the proof that the Church is not "obsessed". Catholics can take it (in Holy Matrimony) or leave it (in the single life). Funny, too, that you would deem anyone living chastely in the single state to be unnatural, we all spent a good portion of our live in this state, many still are, and some will be in perpetuity. Forgive the rant, we're not the ones obsessed...

There is no clear mandate from God, in Scripture or anywhere else, that every ual act must be done with the intention of impregnation.

I agree that if a person wants to have a aul relationship without having the committments of family that go with it, then - aside from obvious or serious medical reasons - that is wrong. I also agree that many Christians use forms of birth control that are wrong, e.g. many of them are not yet aware that both types of contraceptive pill (not the morning after pill, I mean the mini pill and the combined pill) do, on occasion, destroy a conceptus.

But the burden of proof rests squarely with those who want to maintain that God forbids contraception.

Be fruitful and multiply comes to mind, but oddly enough I can agree with your statement as such. NFP is allowed by the Church, not every act must be ordered toward conception. Every act, however, must be open to God's Will regarding conception.

What is the purpose of the act, in any species? Procreation. In humans (and some others) there is also the unitive aspect. What right do we have to delibrately place obstacles in the way of the miracle of life?

Putting such an obstacle on the act, it hinders the great gift of self to one another that is part and parcel of the whole deal.

chris

[Larry Ancil]

What else would you add as a pupose for the marriage act? There is more to marriage than the act, I admit. That is why a Catholic couple is allowed to withhold themselves to prevent conception.

chris

I understand that this is not entirely on topic, and am hesitant to post so I will try to bring it back to the point at hand. A purpose for marriage might be because "it is better to marry than to burn." I'm not suggesting anybody actually get married just on that basis, but it does lead to the point (Forum members who are not married may want to have someone moderate or review this post prior to reading; we will be talking about sex adult content.). What is wrong about other methods? Is it wrong to end early? Is there something amiss with "spilling one's seed?" You can make a biblical argument for that one, but would you also agree then (and hey, kudos to you if you stick to your reasoning over your feelings) that is somehow wrong (morally) with being premature? I'm sure there is more that could be brought up, but it think we can stand here for now. ***married readers can use your imagination, single users find another train of thought***

[1.61803399]

I understand that this is not entirely on topic, and am hesitant to post so I will try to bring it back to the point at hand. A purpose for marriage might be because "it is better to marry than to burn." I'm not suggesting anybody actually get married just on that basis, but it does lead to the point (Forum members who are not married may want to have someone moderate or review this post prior to reading; we will be talking about sex content.). What is wrong about other methods? Is it wrong to end early? Is there something amiss with "spilling one's seed?" You can make a biblical argument for that one, but would you also agree then (and hey, kudos to you if you stick to your reasoning over your feelings) that is somehow wrong (morally) with being premature? I'm sure there is more that could be brought up, but it think we can stand here for now. ***married readers can use your imagination, single users find another train of thought***

Please, feel free to share in directing this thread, it was made at your behest.

Other methods have various difficulties in fulfiling one or both ends of the act. Some methods (chemical contraceptives) are abortificants as well, and are objectionable under that as well.

As to Onan's case, intent matters. If one is withholding himself, for the purpose of avoiding conception, his intent is suspect. If it is, well, an or inability, then it is not an act of the will, no intent, no harm (maybe to pride, but...).

chris

[Larry Ancil]

Other methods have various difficulties in fulfiling one or both ends of the act.
chris
Would not abstaining also present difficulty in fulfilling at least one? It certainly hinders the procreative aspect. I would suggest it hinder the unitive side as well.

[1.61803399]

Would not abstaining also present difficulty in fulfilling at least one? It certainly hinders the procreative aspect. I would suggest it hinder the unitive side as well.

No, it would stop both. Although if you cannot find another unitive activity you need to get help (which would probably include abstaining for a time).

I would assume that if a couple were to abstain (at least during fertile periods) they have a greater good in mind. What that is is between them and God, but mental or physical health or financial concerns come to mind. Abstainence as a/the means for preventing conception is what this thread is about.

chris

[Larry Ancil]

No, it would stop both. Although if you cannot find another unitive activity you need to get help (which would probably include abstaining for a time).

I would assume that if a couple were to abstain (at least during fertile periods) they have a greater good in mind. What that is is between them and God, but mental or physical health or financial concerns come to mind. Abstainence as a/the means for preventing conception is what this thread is about.

chris
I think we've missed eachother. What is wrong about early withdrawal (in a moral sense, I understand that it may be ineffective.)? Its unitve (the couple is coming together) and it does not negatively impact the procreative aspect any more than abstinence does. How is this wrong when abstinence is not as unitive and more restrictive on the procreative side? If the morality of contraception choices is based on how they impact the two aspects of marriage (unitive and procreative) then wouldn't abstinence be a poor choice since it is really bad for both?

[1.61803399]

I think we've missed eachother. What is wrong about early withdrawal (in a moral sense, I understand that it may be ineffective.)? Its unitve (the couple is coming together) and it does not negatively impact the procreative aspect any more than abstinence does. How is this wrong when abstinence is not as unitive and more restrictive on the procreative side? If the morality of contraception choices is based on how they impact the two aspects of marriage (unitive and procreative) then wouldn't abstinence be a poor choice since it is really bad for both?

I agree we have been talking past each other a bit.

The morality is based on trying to get something (the pleasure of the act) for nothing (avoiding conception). One can choose not to have the consequences of the act by choosing not to do the act. It is the participation in the act, while not being open to the fullness of the act that determines morality in this case.

chris

[Larry Ancil]

I agree we have been talking past each other a bit.

The morality is based on trying to get something (the pleasure of the act) for nothing (avoiding conception). One can choose not to have the consequences of the act by choosing not to do the act. It is the participation in the act, while not being open to the fullness of the act that determines morality in this case.

chris
Now I understand you. Im not sure that I follow you entirely, but I understand a bit more. So, futher questions...
Is it immoral for a man to perform the act with a sterile woman, or vice versa?
Is this a general form for immorality; fun while avoiding consequence?
Is it wrong to have sex at a time when you're sure pregnancy will not result?
Is it wrong to wait for this time?
If its ok to have sex at this time, is it wrong to use protection at this time?
Where did this idea come from?
I have more, but some may be answered or not relevant depending on your answers.

[1.61803399]

Now I understand you. Im not sure that I follow you entirely, but I understand a bit more. So, futher questions...
Is it immoral for a man to perform the act with a sterile woman, or vice versa?

No (biblically it would be indefensible, as Sara and Elizabeth were barren), for it is open to life (indeed, often hoping against all odds). It allows for God's will to be done.

Is this a general form for immorality; fun while avoiding consequence?

For all immorality, I think it falls short, but in many (if not every) case where we seek a something while trying to avoid resposibility for our actions, we fall. In making the means an end in itself, we are allowing ourselves to disorder what was in order.

Is it wrong to have at a time when you're sure pregnancy will not result?

No, as with the sterile case, as long as the openness to life is there, it is acceptible.

Is it wrong to wait for this time?

Conditional no. There needs to be sufficient reason to do so (from financial to mental or even physical reasons), but it is permissible.

If its ok to have at this time, is it wrong to use protection at this time?

Yes, as that indicates that the couple is not open to life. We must remember that God will give us the grace to make it through what He has planned for us.

Where did this idea come from?

It has developed over the centuries (esp. as medical knowledge advanced), but was held by all major religions as recently as 1930. For Christians, particularly Catholics, it has its root in the Bible (children are a gift from God, etc.), the Didache, and the Church Fathers. The idea of not being open to life within a religious family was unheard of until relatively recently. Where did it come from?

I have more, but some may be answered or not relevant depending on your answers.

sorry it took awhile, needed to wait until I had time to think through my answers.

chris

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

When 1.6 (etc) was asked if it is wrong for a couple to deliberately wait for a time when they know pregnancy will not result, the answer was:Conditional no. There needs to be sufficient reason to do so (from financial to mental or even physical reasons), but it is permissible.OK, so they have decided to try to have sex and avoid pregnancy - intentionally, remember, so they trying to not be "open to life," and according to 1.6 (etc), it is permissible, if there are reasons. OK, that's clear enough, but then when the question is raised as to whether or not the couple would be wrong to use extra methods in addition to timing, to avoid pregnancy (and remember, the timing itself was a deliberate ploy to avoid pregnancy), here's the answer:
Yes, as that indicates that the couple is not open to life. We must remember that God will give us the grace to make it through what He has planned for us. This is a contradiction. If it is not wrong to deliberately avoid pregnancy by using timing, then it is not wrong to have sex while not being "open to life." 1.6 has effectively said that it both is and is not wrong to be open to life.

If you say that people shouldn't use contraception because they need to trust in God to give them the grace to deal with whatever comes their way, then why don't you say that to the couple that uses timing to avoid pregnancy? If you say "because the timing method may fail, and so they will be forced to deal with life then," and you still say that they are being open to life, then you have said that using non-timing based methods of contraception is also open to life, for they too may fail, just as timing-based contraception methods may fail.

Why do you distinguish between the two?

Is it not less messy to say that it is wrong to have a sexual relationship with no openness to procreation? That seems to avoid unusual contradictions like the one in your post.

[1.61803399]

When 1.6 (etc) was asked if it is wrong for a couple to deliberately wait for a time when they know pregnancy will not result, the answer was:OK, so they have decided to try to have and avoid pregnancy - intentionally, remember, so they trying to not be "open to life," and according to 1.6 (etc), it is permissible, if there are reasons. OK, that's clear enough, but then when the question is raised as to whether or not the couple would be wrong to use extra methods in addition to timing, to avoid pregnancy (and remember, the timing itself was a deliberate ploy to avoid pregnancy), here's the answer:
This is a contradiction. If it is not wrong to deliberately avoid pregnancy by using timing, then it is not wrong to have while not being "open to life." 1.6 has effectively said that it both is and is not wrong to be open to life.

If you say that people shouldn't use contraception because they need to trust in God to give them the grace to deal with whatever comes their way, then why don't you say that to the couple that uses timing to avoid pregnancy? If you say "because the timing method may fail, and so they will be forced to deal with life then," and you still say that they are being open to life, then you have said that using non-timing based methods of contraception is also open to life, for they too may fail, just as timing-based contraception methods may fail.

The difference is placing that barrier in the act. Ideally, if a couple is "timing", they are also open to the life that could result. In no way can artifical contraceptives be used while remaining open to life. "Timing" also has the nature a fast from that particular pleasure.

That being said, even NFP should be used only when necessary, (hence the conditional answer).

Why do you distinguish between the two?

Is it not less messy to say that it is wrong to have a ual relationship with no openness to procreation? That seems to avoid unusual contradictions like the one in your post.

Because there is a difference, self control vs selfish loss of control. It is assumed that the marriage act (because that the only place it belongs) is open to life. In the "ideal" world, there would be no reason not to have as many children as possible, but there are times when it is necessary to refain from the act in order to safeguard the health of the parents and their children.

chris

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The difference is placing that barrier in the act. Ideally, if a couple is "timing", they are also open to the life that could result. In no way can artifical contraceptives be used while remaining open to life. "Timing" also has the nature a fast from that particular pleasure.

That being said, even NFP should be used only when necessary, (hence the conditional answer).But wait - you gave the fact that contraception is not "open to life" as the reason why it was wrong. But this just means - whether anyone likes it or not - that any attempt to have sex and deliberately try to avoid "life" is doing wrong for the same reason. Either that's what makes it wrong, or it's not. If it's not, you must give up your reason for opposing non-timing based contraception. If it is, then you must also oppose timing-based methods of constraception too. You say that if a couple is timing, then they are open to life. Sure they are - When they know the time is right for conception to occur. But on the times when they know it's not, and they deliberately choose those times, they aren;t open to life.

If you mean they're open t life because some of the time they deliberately have sex at times when conception is likely, then you've destroyed your objection to other methods, so long as some of the time they allow for the possibility of life.
Because there is a difference, self control vs selfish loss of control. It is assumed that the marriage act (because that the only place it belongs) is open to life. Except when people use contraception, such as timing methods.
In the "ideal" world, there would be no reason not to have as many children as possible, but there are times when it is necessary to refain from the act in order to safeguard the health of the parents and their children.

chris
OK, so contraception is OK sometimes, as long as couples do try to have children?

[1.61803399]

But wait - you gave the fact that contraception is not "open to life" as the reason why it was wrong. But this just means - whether anyone likes it or not - that any attempt to have and deliberately try to avoid "life" is doing wrong for the same reason. Either that's what makes it wrong, or it's not. If it's not, you must give up your reason for opposing non-timing based contraception. If it is, then you must also oppose timing-based methods of constraception too. You say that if a couple is timing, then they are open to life. Sure they are - When they know the time is right for conception to occur. But on the times when they know it's not, and they deliberately choose those times, they aren;t open to life.

If you mean they're open t life because some of the time they deliberately have at times when conception is likely, then you've destroyed your objection to other methods, so long as some of the time they allow for the possibility of life.
Except when people use contraception, such as timing methods.

OK, so contraception is OK sometimes, as long as couples do try to have children?

so much for conversation, I guess this is now a debate, with all the fallicies that come with. (would've thought better from a mod)

So my read on your position is pro-contraception, playing devil's advocate to expose inconsistencies in my position, is this correct? Or are you actually arguing from what you hold, for no contraception, including timing? (If the second is the case, what about abstaining completely for a time?)

Contraception is an attempt to separate the end from the means, thus making the means an end. As wondrous as the marriage act is, it is a means to an end (well, two ends). If you remove one of the ends, you fall into error. If you do not seek the unitive end you tend towards (even in marriage). If you do not seek the procreative, well... that is what we're discussing.

The crux of your argument comes down to a disagreement with my assertion (indirectly) that a couple using artifical contraceptives is not open to life, but that a couple using NFP can be open to life. As you are the one raising the objection, please explain it (without telling me what I *MUST* believe, if you can). In particular, as you seem to believe that is impossible for NFP to be open to life, let's begin there, shall we?

chris

PS. sorry that the thread is being hijacked Larry

PPS. Almost forgot: Theonomy, if you intend to have a dialogue on this thread, please answer my opening questions. What I believe is known (and you can look up the Church's teachings that I follow easy enough), so let's be on some level of common footing, shall we?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

so much for conversation, I guess this is now a debate, with all the fallicies that come with. (would've thought better from a mod)

So my read on your position is pro-contraception, playing devil's advocate to expose inconsistencies in my position, is this correct? Or are you actually arguing from what you hold, for no contraception, including timing? (If the second is the case, what about abstaining completely for a time?)I am not aware of having committed a fallacy, but I am open to being shown where I have.

And yes, I am playing devil's advocate to show you that the reasons you give for opposing non-timing based methods of contraception also apply to timing based methods that you do not oppose, and so there is an inconsistency.
Contraception is an attempt to separate the end from the means, thus making the means an end. As wondrous as the marriage act is, it is a means to an end (well, two ends). If you remove one of the ends, you fall into error. If you do not seek the unitive end you tend towards (even in marriage). If you do not seek the procreative, well... that is what we're discussing.I agree that contraception separates the act of marriage from one of its ends. But this is not just true of some forms of contraception, it is true of all forms of contraception - every method of deliberately voiding conception when engaging in the marital act. Timing based methods are not exempt, since inasmuch as they are an attempt to have sex and deliberately prevent conception, they are separating the act from one of its ends.
The crux of your argument comes down to a disagreement with my assertion (indirectly) that a couple using artifical contraceptives is not open to life, but that a couple using NFP can be open to life.No, the crux of my objection is that the specific feature of non-timing based methods of contraception that you oppose is also present in timing based methods, and so you should either oppose them both, or give up the objection.
As you are the one raising the objection, please explain it (without telling me what I *MUST* believe, if you can). In particular, as you seem to believe that is impossible for NFP to be open to life, let's begin there, shall we?I think we've already begun, because what I'm trying to get from you is an explanation of why it is OK to separate one of the ends of sex from the martical act in some cases (as in timing based methods of contraception), but not in other cases. It's not clear to me that this is a principled objection to other methods (because the standard seems it apply insome cases but not others), and it certainly doesn't seem consistent.


Also, I didn't say that NFP isn;t open to life. If you recall, you said that other methods of contraception were different from timing based methods because they were not open to life. But it now seems that if they are not open, nor is NFP, because both methods seem to meet your criterion of separating the act from the end.

PPS. Almost forgot: Theonomy, if you intend to have a dialogue on this thread, please answer my opening questions. What I believe is known (and you can look up the Church's teachings that I follow easy enough), so let's be on some level of common footing, shall we?POSt #1 contains no questions. however, you do raise a question later when responding to me. You first state that you actually agree with my post, when I said that not every act must be geared towards conception. This is consistent with your later comments, which affirm that a couple may separate the act from the end provided they use timing based methods and not other methods. You then add:
[/quote]What is the purpose of the act, in any species? Procreation. In humans (and some others) there is also the unitive aspect. What right do we have to delibrately place obstacles in the way of the miracle of life?[/quote]This is actually quite confusing, since you have said that in fact we may place such obstacles, as long as we only use timing based methods, and we are "open" to the possibility that the method may fail and God will have His sovereign way. But as soo as this is said, every objection to non-abortifacient contraception collapses, as far as I can tell. I am willing to learn otherwise.

[1.61803399]

There is no clear mandate from God, in Scripture or anywhere else, that every ual act must be done with the intention of impregnation.

I agree that if a person wants to have a aul relationship without having the committments of family that go with it, then - aside from obvious or serious medical reasons - that is wrong. I also agree that many Christians use forms of birth control that are wrong, e.g. many of them are not yet aware that both types of contraceptive pill (not the morning after pill, I mean the mini pill and the combined pill) do, on occasion, destroy a conceptus.

But the burden of proof rests squarely with those who want to maintain that God forbids contraception.

As you are taking (whether for argument or in fact) the position that contraception, including NFP, is , by your own words, burden of proof is yours.

Therefore, I insist that you prove your implications on NFP not being open to life (posts 16, 18, 20). Otherwise, I will put you on ignore and try to get the thread back where we were before you made your claims.

Pax Christi,

chris

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

As you are taking (whether for argument or in fact) the position that contraception, including NFP, is , by your own words, burden of proof is yours.

Therefore, I insist that you prove your implications on NFP not being open to life (posts 16, 18, 20). Otherwise, I will put you on ignore and try to get the thread back where we were before you made your claims.

Pax Christi,

chrisA few things things. In the first place, it looks like you attempted to quote me, but had a technical glitch, so it's hard to know how to respond.

Secondly, under normal circumstances, when a person argues for a restriction on behaviour, that is, when they argue that a certain moral obligation exists (and in this case, that person is you), they take on the full burden of proof.

And thirdly, I thought I had offered proof from your own posts that timing sex in order to avoid conceptipon was just as open to life as other methods, since a) you said that the factor that makes the difference is whether or not a couple is attempting to separate the end of conception from the act of sex, and b) having sex at a certain time with the intention fo avoiding conception does just this (i.e. attempts to seaparate the two). You also say that timing based methods are open to life. This concludes my proof that, based on premises that you accept, since it logically entails the conclusion that an act that deliberately tries to separate the act of sex from the end of conception is open to life.

You can avoid this conclusion by saying that timing based methods of contraception are not open to life, or you can reject your premise that any method that separates the act of sex from the ends of conception is closed to life.

It's only a matter of logic, and you do need to do one of those two things if you want to avoid the admission that every act that deliberately tries to separate the act of sex from the end of conception is not necessarily wrong. Otherwise the conclusion is inescapable.

[1.61803399]

A few things things. In the first place, it looks like you attempted to quote me, but had a technical glitch, so it's hard to know how to respond.

except for a word or two that my hyper-sensitive computer took out, I did quote your first post on this thread, #6. I can see it fine, and as my computer is rather nuts, I assume everyone else can as well.

Secondly, under normal circumstances, when a person argues for a restriction on behaviour, that is, when they argue that a certain moral obligation exists (and in this case, that person is you), they take on the full burden of proof.

And you are arguing for the stricter restriction on behaviour, therefore YOU have burden of proof.

And thirdly, I thought I had offered proof from your own posts that timing in order to avoid conceptipon was just as open to life as other methods, since a) you said that the factor that makes the difference is whether or not a couple is attempting to separate the end of conception from the act of , and b) having at a certain time with the intention fo avoiding conception does just this (i.e. attempts to seaparate the two). You also say that timing based methods are open to life. This concludes my proof that, based on premises that you accept, since it logically entails the conclusion that an act that deliberately tries to separate the act of from the end of conception is open to life.

Sorry, but Larry and I were in a discussion, I was not phrasing my wording as strictly for debate. It is a reason, not the only one. And you are assuiming that NFP is NOT open to life, which by your requirement for burden of proof requires you to prove your assumption.

You can avoid this conclusion by saying that timing based methods of contraception are not open to life, or you can reject your premise that any method that separates the act of from the ends of conception is closed to life.

False Dichotomy. You are not stating my position correctly in your second premise.


This was not, and will not be a debat thread. This is my last post before I put you on ignore. As thread starter, I would report your posts, pushing an argument that I have repeatedly said is not in the intrest of keeping this thread civil, but who will get the complaint? Moderator of the forum: theonomy...

chris

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

except for a word or two that my hyper-sensitive computer took out, I did quote your first post on this thread, #6. I can see it fine, and as my computer is rather nuts, I assume everyone else can as well.I'm talking about this: "As you are taking (whether for argument or in fact) the position that contraception, including NFP, is , by your own words, burden of proof is yours." There seems to be something missing there.
And you are arguing for the stricter restriction on behaviour, therefore YOU have burden of proof.Firstly, I'm not arguing for it. I'm arguing that your premises lead to it. And secondly, I have met the burden of proof, by showing that you accept premises that deductively entail that position.
False Dichotomy. You are not stating my position correctly in your second premise.How so? You have stated in very clear terms that what is wrong with other kinds of contraception is that they spearate the act of sex between husband and wife from the end of procreation. That's what you explicitly said. You also explicitly said that intentionally having sex at a particular time in order to avoid conception is open to life. I'm not putting any words in your mouth.
This was not, and will not be a debat thread.What? So no person can express disagreemnt with you in the thread? You started this thread by making a moral assertion. Are you unwilling to defend it at all?
This is my last post before I put you on ignore. As thread starter, I would report your posts, pushing an argument that I have repeatedly said is not in the intrest of keeping this thread civil,I have said nothing that could be interpreted as uncivil, unless you think any argument against your claims is uncivil.
but who will get the complaint? Moderator of the forum: theonomy...

chris
There is more than one moderator of this forum. If you were to complain by saying that I offered arguments to show that your claim has problems, and that this makes me uncivil, another moderator would deal with it, not me. So feel free to complain if you like. But it looks to me like you don't like the way the argument turned out, personally.