X number of healthy, wealthy, Christian, good parents are about to have sex during a fertile time for the wife. They all decide to use a condom. You have the power to persuade all of them not to use it (but not the power to prevent the sex.)

However you could also use this time to successully persuade a woman to not have an abortion. And you can't do both.

What does X have to be to make it right to choose the first option?

I would always choose to stop the abortion no matter how high X is.

Normally I pass on these but I cannot see the trap in this so I will bite. I choose to prevent the abortion for all finite X.

curious if SP or RLK can provide a bit more rationale behind their decision. Find it a bit fascinating that your answer is the same and it is "for all finite X".

I dont know if it's a trap, as such. I always thought contraception was seen as 'as bad as' abortion or at least in the same league, even if to a lesser degree. You seem to be placing it in a different, less serious category than abortion.

So contraception is really not a big deal then, right? If X can be any number, contraception must not even be in the same moral universe as abortion, yes?

From a purely religious prespective the unconcieved do not have souls.

X could approach infinity and I would still choose the latter.

If God wants you to get pregnant the condom will not work ldo.

Oh this brings up another question: since there are only a few days a month when a woman can get pregnant, is consciously only having sex on days when she cannot any less of a sin than using birth control?

It's not a sin at all, and in fact the Church encourages it:

Natural Family Planning

I'd help perform the abortion while watching a video feed of the married couples having sex.

This doesn't seem to make any sense. From the page:

But isn't avoiding pregnancy what makes contraception a sin in the first place? Either it's God's plan for you to have children or it isn't. If it isn't, then no harm no foul. If it is, then there doesn't seem to be any practical difference between not having sex while your wife can get pregnant and having it but preventing her from getting pregnant. Either way you defy God's plan by not having children. In fact, abstaining seems worse since having sex with contraception doesn't eliminate the possibility of getting pregnant while abstaining certainly does.

The Church identifies two primary purposes of the marital conjugal act:

1) Unitive: Helping a couple grow closer to each other, a corrolary to Christ's love of the Church

2) Procreative: The couple is open to the gift of children.

NFP satisfies both of these conditions. The expectation of couples practicing NFP is that, while they may try to avoid pregnancy, they remain open to life. The Church will never dictate rules to a married couple as to where and when they have sex. It should also be obvious that not every conjugal act results in a pregnancy. So if a couple uses the human body's natural cycles to avoid pregnancy, no sin is committed. Similarly, a post-menopausal or otherwise infertile married couple can continue to have sex since the fundamental openness to life remains.

Well sure, thats what any SANE person would do, but we are talking about the catholics here.

This is equally applicable to contraception. There is no difference here.

You're not looking hard enough. Contraception is a deliberate, artificial barrier to procreation. NFP is not.

So, a deliberate, natural impediment is better than a deliberate, artificial barrier. Ok.

Also, what do you call people who practice the rhythm method?

Of course NFP is deliberate, that's just ridiculous. How does the fact that condoms are made by humans change anything?

Homosexuality is a much better approach. Then there's no need to worry about contraception or abortions. I expect that's why Catholic priests favour having sex with young boys - two sins for the price of one.

Natural Family Planning is an "angle shot".

The Church can't require married couples to have sex at a particular time or tell them they can't refrain from having sex at a particular time.

They can't require married couples to not use condoms either. But they can call both a sin.

Do you think that NFP is a sin?

Tough to call abstaining from sex a sin after first saying abstaining from sex is not a sin.

Easy to continue saying using a condom is a sin after first saying using a condom is a sin.

Perhaps if the church knew that NFP could be an effective birth control method they would have never said couples could abstain from having sex. I do agree with you that allowing natual family planning while forbiding artificial birth control looks like a bit of a contradiction....especially since technology has made natural family planning much more effective.

yeah, I think this is the difficult bit for you. Is it still going to be ok if they invent a handheld tester which indicates when it's "safe"? (give it the same success rate as condoms, for the sake of the argument).

They already manufacture hand held ovulation testers. You can go to the local drug store and buy one. They are not sold as birth control devices but rather as fertility aids to couples who want to concieve. Of course it is not hard to use them as NFP planning aids either.

Would the church veiw the purchasing of such a device and using it to determine when to abstain from sex as a sin?

That was my question - hypothesizing a kit as effective as condoms.