Am I missing anything for the argument against contraception?

Protestant coming in peace here. I'm posting this because, although I'm leaning towards contraception being permissible, I am not completely decided one way or the other. I am wondering if anyone here can provide a different perspective or something that I am missing.

I think the case for contraception being sinful starts with the near-unanimous agreement of the early Church. Although contraception is not mentioned in the Bible, I do think this near-unanimous agreement is a powerful witness and it is the main reason I do not yet feel settled on this issue. However, my current impression is that this teaching may reflect broader philosophical assumptions about the purpose of sex that were common in the ancient world, rather than an apostolic teaching preserved by the Church.

I don't throw around this 'different cultures' idea lightly because I know it can be misused a lot to argue against pretty clear teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. But when I see a near-unanimous teaching of the early Church that is not found in Scripture, I do think it is good practice to look at the reasons why the early Church takes that position. So here are the three main lines of reasoning that I have seen early Church Fathers taking when arguing against contraception (please let me know if I am missing anything):

1. The purpose of sex is procreation. Sex for any other reason goes against God's intentions (does injury to nature).
   • To me this is the most interesting line of reasoning, and seems to be the argument Catholics tend to take. However, I think this line of reasoning goes against what the Bible has to say about sex. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul speaks about sex as a marital duty between a husband and a wife. In verse 5 he goes on to say "Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control." Notice Paul's reasoning for not abstaining for too long. It is not to get back to making babies. Rather, it is to protect against temptation (presumably to have extramarital sex based on verse 2). To Paul, protecting yourself against temptation is a legitimate reason on its own to have sex, contradicting the idea that sex for any other reason than procreation is sinful.
   • Now, I know that many would argue that the Catholic Church teaches more of a dual purpose of sex, with one purpose being unitive or the other procreative, and that those two purposes should never be separated. However, from what I have seen, this position is never taken by the early Church Fathers when discussing abortion. Their arguments against contraception that I have read consistently seem to be that procreation is the only purpose of sex. And even this dual purpose approach struggles in the face of 1 Corinthians 7. Paul does not appeal to procreation at all in this passage. Instead, his entire rationale is avoiding temptation.
   • It is also important to note that the argument that having sex for any reason outside of procreation being sinful has applications beyond contraception. If the Fathers literally mean that every act of sex must be for the purpose of procreation, then Natural Family Planning (NFP) is sinful, as you are having sex without the chance of procreation. In fact, not only would NFP be sinful, but knowingly having sex any time outside of the fertile window would be sinful, even if you were still having sex during your fertile window as well. Having sex while pregnant would be sinful (that's not how twins work lol). Having sex after menopause would be sinful. Sex would never be permitted for people incapable of having kids. Notably, none of these situations are mentioned by Paul when he says "Do not deprive each other". Paul gives only one qualification to his command, and it is "to be free for prayer."
2. Equating contraception with murder. I'm not entirely sure what types of contraception were in use in the Roman world, but I do know there were some abortifacients and other later acting methods. For instance, Hippolytus talks about women who "use drugs of sterility or bind themselves tightly in order to expel a fetus which has already been engendered” (Refutation of All Heresies 9:12 [A.D. 225]). I am pretty confident that these arguments are specifically about abortifacients and miscarriage-inducing methods, rather than barrier methods or withdrawal. To be clear, I am 100% against abortion and extremely wary of any post-fertilization contraception.
3. Arguments from individual biblical passages. To be honest, most of these don't make much sense to me and seem like real stretches. The only purely biblical argument made by the early Church that I kind of get is the sin of Onan in Genesis. However, virtually all Bible scholars agree that this story is about Onan disobeying the levirate marriage laws, rather than contraception. Arguing that this passage is a warning against contraception certainly seems to be reading a lot into the text and taking the story out of its original intent.

Like I said, if I am missing or misunderstanding anything from a Catholic perspective on this issue please let me know.