Any secular arguments against birth control?

[Warrior1979]

Some economic ones. After all the scaremongering about The Population Bomb and the need for Zero Population Growth in the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. and Europe are not at a replacement rate for population. As a result, there aren’t enough people being born in those cultures to support social security payments for the demographic bulge of the Baby Boomers.

I believe this is a terrible argument. Do people really think the pyramid funded social benefit programs are a reason to have lots of children? Pyramid funded schemes are idiotic and unsustainable, even if their intent is good.

 

[Holly3278]

If contraceptives are carcinogenic as another poster said, I think that would be a good secular argument against them.

 

[friendster324]

I don’t think you will give my thoughts much credence as they are subjective, but I feel like I should share them anyways. My argument is completely different than the ones others posted. It’s an analogy I came up with one day while thinking about the issue at hand. I realized that the reproductive system isn’t all that different from the digestive system in terms of its purpose.

The two main biological outcomes of eating is that it gives us nourishment (life), and it is pleasurable. The same is similar for sex. It gives us new life, and it is pleasurable. What happens when you take the “life” part out of the equation? One way for sex is to use a condom. This, more or less, throws away the life part. To throw away the life part of eating means to throw up the food after eating it. I don’t think I know anyone who would say that eating for pleasure, and then throwing it up right after, is an okay thing to do. This denial of nutrients is normally seen as an eating disorder.

Another way to take the “life” out of sex is to use medication. Now obviously there is no pill that can void all nutrients of any food eaten, but if there were, would people think it was okay? I’m guessing some would, but I don’t think it would be the majority.

Everyone has sexual urges and everyone has urges to eat. But why is it okay to give in to all of one’s sexual urges, but it’s not okay to give in to all of one’s eating urges. Knowing when to indulge and when to abstain in eating is considered a healthy way of living.

I could elaborate more, but I think you get the idea. You might not think that this analogy holds any water, but it’s worth considering.

 

[lao_tzu]

If contraceptives are carcinogenic as another poster said, I think that would be a good secular argument against them.

It would be, but the chances are great it’s a fraudulent claim. These are natural hormones we’re talking about, just taken in larger doses than occur naturally. Because pregnancy carries its own risks, any such argument must show the risks of contraception are greater still.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Luvya]

I don’t think you will give my thoughts much credence as they are subjective, but I feel like I should share them anyways. My argument is completely different than the ones others posted. It’s an analogy I came up with one day while thinking about the issue at hand. I realized that the reproductive system isn’t all that different from the digestive system in terms of its purpose.

The two main biological outcomes of eating is that it gives us nourishment (life), and it is pleasurable. The same is similar for sex. It gives us new life, and it is pleasurable. What happens when you take the “life” part out of the equation? One way for sex is to use a condom. This, more or less, throws away the life part. To throw away the life part of eating means to throw up the food after eating it. I don’t think I know anyone who would say that eating for pleasure, and then throwing it up right after, is an okay thing to do. This denial of nutrients is normally seen as an eating disorder.

Another way to take the “life” out of sex is to use medication. Now obviously there is no pill that can void all nutrients of any food eaten, but if there were, would people think it was okay? I’m guessing some would, but I don’t think it would be the majority.

Everyone has sexual urges and everyone has urges to eat. But why is it okay to give in to all of one’s sexual urges, but it’s not okay to give in to all of one’s eating urges. Knowing when to indulge and when to abstain in eating is considered a healthy way of living.

I could elaborate more, but I think you get the idea. You might not think that this analogy holds any water, but it’s worth considering.

Actually, it is not a bad argument, much better then most. Where it breaks down is that you view it as an all-or-nothing issue. Using birth control simply removes procreation for the time being. When the people want to procreate, they simply stop the practice.

A steady diet is preferable to wolfing down all the food you can eat and then throwing up. The same is true for pretty much everything. Practising birth control is not like that. If you wish to make an analogy, then you could think of reduced nutrients in the food, like artificial fat, which allows to have the taste, but does not cause weight increase.

It is peculiar, that we can eat ourselves to death, drink ourselves to death, exercise ourselves to death… what we cannot do is “sex” ourselves to death. Our body simply does not allow it.

 

[Abu]

Arizona Mike
all the scaremongering about The Population Bomb and the need for Zero Population Growth in the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. and Europe are not at a replacement rate for population. As a result, there aren’t enough people being born in those cultures to support social security payments for the demographic bulge of the Baby Boomers.

You are correct that the birth dearth has placed the West as a whole in a quandary regarding supporting an aging population, and increased birth rates are needed for economic reasons.
Actually, “Demographic winter” denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as a “birth-dearth,” and what it portends – the demographic winter which has engulfed Europe due to the contraceptive mentality leading to the abortion mentality is now evident. [See http://www.demographicwinter.com].

Bonuses or allowances for children born into a family and offered by the State continue to be, and now more so than ever due to the birth dearth, a real need for the welfare of a nation.

 

[ConstantineTG]

No, its because the immigrants retain the culture of where their home country which encourages large families. In other words, they continue to act as though they are poor and unhealthy because that is what they are accustomed to. I would be very curious to see what the fertility rate looks like after 1, 2, and 3 generations of immigrants.

Also consider Vietnam. Their fertility rate fell faster after they switched from the communist family planning to a more free capitalist system.

Being an immigrant myself, I can testify that we do not life as if we’re poor. The whole point we moved to another country is so that we do not have to live as if we’re poor. While there is a portion of immigrants who still live modestly because they really haven’t achieved the right level of financial success, those who have do tend to life a more affluent lifestyle compared to someone who was born and raised here and makes the same amount of money. For example, Caucasians who make six-figures a year tend to drive more modest vehicles than an immigrant who would definitely be driving a German made luxury car at that salary range.

 

[OrangeOwl]

As always, the Devil is in the details. What you describe may happen once in a blue moon. Most STD’s can be treated by penicillin and other drugs. Having multiple partners has been with us since the dawn of time. Is there a significant increase in STD since penicillin and birth control methods have been introduced? By the way, condoms are not 100% efficient (nothing is, except aspirin when held firmly between the knees ) but they do give a good protection against STD. Fortunately there are two varieties (one for males and one for females) and when both are used, the risk of disease is almost nil.

Of course there has been a significant increase. The prevalence of STDs has grown substantially in the last 50 years, in both number and variation.

Also, the risk of disease isn’t “almost nil” with the use of condoms. In fact, with condoms you still have a 50/50 chance of getting syphilis or gonorrhea.

 

[jawgee]

The side effects are well documented. It is up to each individual to weigh the risks and rewards before starting a medical treatment.

There are also side benefits to oral contraceptives. For example, they reduce the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers.
cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives#3

And they INCREASE the risk of breask cancer. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen too many advertisements about endometrial cancer walks, or ovarian cancer walks. The rates of breast cancer have exploded, especially among younger women.

 

[Katie966]

It can be. There are cases where it is desirable to interrupt the menstrual cycle, if you work in the field I’m sure you are familiar with what those cases are. I have pointed out there are also cases where it is desirable to interrupt the immune system, digestive system, our perception of pain, etc. Your original point was that oral contraceptives are one of the few drugs that break a bodily function, and I provided counter examples.

It seems you now wish to change your point to “one of the few drugs which lets you break a body function for no reason.” However, if a woman feels that she is encumbered by her menstrual cycle, then her menstrual cycle is in fact a problem. You’ll say “but it is functioning normally” and I will remind you that we take painkillers to break our normally functioning pain receptors. It doesn’t matter what is causing the pain, just like it doesn’t matter why the woman feels encumbered by her cycle.

I never said anything about pain. There are women who have perfectly normal cycles that are relatively pain free, and are only taking the pill to prevent pregnancy. I am not changing my point at all- in fact I never brought up any of the things you mention. In such cases, they are in fact taking something that disrupts the normal cycle and causes it to malfunction. Pain is a neurological response, not an entire functioning organ system.

 

[Katie966]

Actually, it is not a bad argument, much better then most. Where it breaks down is that you view it as an all-or-nothing issue. Using birth control simply removes procreation for the time being. When the people want to procreate, they simply stop the practice.

Tell this to someone who has taken the pill for an extended period of time and now has trouble conceiving. This happens more often than people like to discuss, as do changes in sexual response that are often permanent.

It’s not as simple as everyone likes to make it. In addition, everyone knows someone who conceived while either using condoms or the pill. If you’re trying to prevent pregnancy because you want to have sex whenever you want without consequences, it’s a much bigger blow when someone finds out she’s pregnant who thought she was in control. Not to mention being pregnant while on the pill and not knowing it is dangerous to a baby.

 

[JaneGrey]

And they INCREASE the risk of breask cancer. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen too many advertisements about endometrial cancer walks, or ovarian cancer walks. The rates of breast cancer have exploded, especially among younger women.

As others have stressed, while some studies have suggested that increased breast cancer rates can be linked to oral contraceptives, lower rates of uterine and ovarian cancer are also ‘side-effects’ of the Pill.

 

[friendster324]

Actually, it is not a bad argument, much better then most. Where it breaks down is that you view it as an all-or-nothing issue. Using birth control simply removes procreation for the time being. When the people want to procreate, they simply stop the practice.

A steady diet is preferable to wolfing down all the food you can eat and then throwing up. The same is true for pretty much everything. Practising birth control is not like that. If you wish to make an analogy, then you could think of reduced nutrients in the food, like artificial fat, which allows to have the taste, but does not cause weight increase.

It is peculiar, that we can eat ourselves to death, drink ourselves to death, exercise ourselves to death… what we cannot do is “sex” ourselves to death. Our body simply does not allow it.

I kind of see where you are coming from but I respectfully disagree with the diet comparison. When you are on a diet, you are still receiving all of the nutrients given by the food you eat. You are just controlling what you are eating. There is no separation from the “life” and the pleasure, it’s just limiting both. I think a more direct comparison to this would be periodic abstinence from sex. With it you still get both components but you are limiting them.

And as for the eating and drinking ourselves to death, we are looking at the opposite end of the spectrum. If someone doesn’t eat or drink, they will die. If a society doesn’t have natural sex (sex without birth control) then it will die.

 

[Luvya]

I kind of see where you are coming from but I respectfully disagree with the diet comparison. When you are on a diet, you are still receiving all of the nutrients given by the food you eat. You are just controlling what you are eating. There is no separation from the “life” and the pleasure, it’s just limiting both.

Ok, agreed.

I think a more direct comparison to this would be periodic abstinence from sex. With it you still get both components but you are limiting them.

Fine… but why would anyone do that unless there is legitimate health reason? Having sex is very pleasurable. Having children (especially too many of them) is extra burden on the parents, and many people do not want it. Moreover, unlimited procreation (too many children) strains the available resources of the parents to care for all of them adequately. It cannot be fun to grow up when the parents simply cannot afford to feed all the children properly. To be constantly hungry is not very appealing.

 

[Rence]

I think the point is, in answer to the original post, that it’s difficult to argue against artificial birth control from a purely secular perspective because the variables will change from individual to individual. Each individual will consider it from their own perspective, in their own situation and weigh the risks and benefits.

To argue against artificial birth control by saying that it will ‘stop the normal functioning’ of the reproductive system won’t mean a thing to someone who wants to do exactly that in order to prevent a pregnancy, or to prevent their periods.

In addition, there are some individual who want to ‘stop the normal functioning’ of the reproductive system so that this normal functioning doesn’t interfere with their daily living…regardless of whether it’s functioning normally or abnormally. I know a girl on the swim team who wants to stop the normal functioning of her body, so that her swimming is not interupted, especially at competition time. I know a cheerleader who wants to stop the normal functioning of her body, so that her cheerleading isn’t interupted. I know people who have taken pills to stop their period for weddings, honeymoons, competitions, dances, vacations. And then I know those who take pills regularly so that they don’t have to “deal with” the inconvenience of their periods. These people want to stop a normal function because the function is inconvenient.

To argue against artificial birth control by saying that it causes some cancers, especially those who are genetically predisposed to it, won’t mean a thing to someone who considers getting pregnant a higher risk than getting a form of cancer, especially if they have no occurrences of that cancer in their family, or if they only intend to take that contraceptive for a certain amount of time. Plus, while it may cause some cancers, it can prevent others.

To argue against artificial birth control by saying that it causes high blood pressure, and raises chances of pulmonary emboli and/or stroke won’t mean a thing to someone who has a good blood pressure and who considers pregnancy a bigger risk than developing birth control – plus they can plan on cessation of the birth control if the blood pressure rises, or take another medication to lower the blood pressure.

The fact is, people consider having children (or even big families) a burden in today’s society and economy, more so when there is an attempt to push having kids on them.And the harder one pushes, the harder another will pull in the opposite direction. Honestly the Catholic Church is the only entity that pushes having children on couples as hard as they do. So coming up with secular arguments will be difficult.

Sure, with marriage comes children. But believe it or not, there are many many people who don’t consider having children a definite requirement, and they don’t believe in the notion to have as many as possible unless there is “serious reason” not to. In fact, from a purely secular perspective, it’s a ridiculous notion. I have read many posts on CAF that say that if you don’t plan on having children (and without limit), then you must not get married. This notion is in the very small minority in the real world. Many people get married without thinking about having kids, and many people get married with the intention of having a certain number of children. That’s life, that’s the way it is. Not everyone is called to have a large family, and it shows in the statistics…it shows in the congregations.

Should we just stop trying to make secular arguments? No, of course not. We should definitely keep trying. But don’t be too disappointed when each argument is met with a counter argument. Secularly speaking, it depends on the individual, their stage of development, their economic status, their marital status, their state of health, etc. Without the fire and brimstone of the Church, there aren’t too many arguments that can’t be countered with another…

I’d like to point out one more obvious thing: If the Catholic Church, with all its teachings, all it’s fire and brimstone, can’t get Catholics themselves to comply with the strict teachings that forbid artificial birth control (for the intent to limit births), how can there be any strong secular arguments to convince the secular world?

 

[Rence]

I kind of see where you are coming from but I respectfully disagree with the diet comparison. When you are on a diet, you are still receiving all of the nutrients given by the food you eat. You are just controlling what you are eating. There is no separation from the “life” and the pleasure, it’s just limiting both. I think a more direct comparison to this would be periodic abstinence from sex. With it you still get both components but you are limiting them.

But why, secularly speaking, would someone who doesn’t refer to the teachings of the Church even want to abstain from sex…especially if they are married? In the secular world, the majority want to be able to enjoy sex without the burden of becoming pregnant.

 

[Rence]

Fine… but why would anyone do that unless there is legitimate health reason? Having sex is very pleasurable. Having children (especially too many of them) is extra burden on the parents, and many people do not want it. Moreover, unlimited procreation (too many children) strains the available resources of the parents to care for all of them adequately. It cannot be fun to grow up when the parents simply cannot afford to feed all the children properly. To be constantly hungry is not very appealing.

The simple answer is that they wouldn’t, and we know this because they don’t.

And it’s not just about feeding them, it’s about being emotionally, spiritually and physically able to hold down a fort that has many children in it. Those factors are just as important as the economical ones. Don’t get me wrong, I really like those big families. And sometimes I think I’d like to have one of those big families. But I completely understand those who limit themselves to one or two.

 

[Luvya]

I think the point is, in answer to the original post, that it’s difficult to argue against artificial birth control from a purely secular perspective because the variables will change from individual to individual. Each individual will consider it from their own perspective, in their own situation and weigh the risks and benefits.

To argue against artificial birth control by saying that it will ‘stop the normal functioning’ of the reproductive system won’t mean a thing to someone who wants to do exactly that in order to prevent a pregnancy, or to prevent their periods.

In addition, there are some individual who want to ‘stop the normal functioning’ of the reproductive system so that this normal functioning doesn’t interfere with their daily living…regardless of whether it’s functioning normally or abnormally. I know a girl on the swim team who wants to stop the normal functioning of her body, so that her swimming is not interupted, especially at competition time. I know a cheerleader who wants to stop the normal functioning of her body, so that her cheerleading isn’t interupted. I know people who have taken pills to stop their period for weddings, honeymoons, competitions, dances, vacations. And then I know those who take pills regularly so that they don’t have to “deal with” the inconvenience of their periods. These people want to stop a normal function because the function is inconvenient.

To argue against artificial birth control by saying that it causes some cancers, especially those who are genetically predisposed to it, won’t mean a thing to someone who considers getting pregnant a higher risk than getting a form of cancer, especially if they have no occurrences of that cancer in their family, or if they only intend to take that contraceptive for a certain amount of time. Plus, while it may cause some cancers, it can prevent others.

To argue against artificial birth control by saying that it causes high blood pressure, and raises chances of pulmonary emboli and/or stroke won’t mean a thing to someone who has a good blood pressure and who considers pregnancy a bigger risk than developing birth control – plus they can plan on cessation of the birth control if the blood pressure rises, or take another medication to lower the blood pressure.

The fact is, people consider having children (or even big families) a burden in today’s society and economy, more so when there is an attempt to push having kids on them.And the harder one pushes, the harder another will pull in the opposite direction. Honestly the Catholic Church is the only entity that pushes having children on couples as hard as they do. So coming up with secular arguments will be difficult.

Sure, with marriage comes children. But believe it or not, there are many many people who don’t consider having children a definite requirement, and they don’t believe in the notion to have as many as possible unless there is “serious reason” not to. In fact, from a purely secular perspective, it’s a ridiculous notion. I have read many posts on CAF that say that if you don’t plan on having children (and without limit), then you must not get married. This notion is in the very small minority in the real world. Many people get married without thinking about having kids, and many people get married with the intention of having a certain number of children. That’s life, that’s the way it is. Not everyone is called to have a large family, and it shows in the statistics…it shows in the congregations.

Should we just stop trying to make secular arguments? No, of course not. We should definitely keep trying. But don’t be too disappointed when each argument is met with a counter argument. Secularly speaking, it depends on the individual, their stage of development, their economic status, their marital status, their state of health, etc. Without the fire and brimstone of the Church, there aren’t too many arguments that can’t be countered with another…

I’d like to point out one more obvious thing: If the Catholic Church, with all its teachings, all it’s fire and brimstone, can’t get Catholics themselves to comply with the strict teachings that forbid artificial birth control (for the intent to limit births), how can there be any strong secular arguments to convince the secular world?

Congratulations on your excellent post.

 

[Luvya]

The simple answer is that they wouldn’t, and we know this because they don’t.

And it’s not just about feeding them, it’s about being emotionally, spiritually and physically able to hold down a fort that has many children in it. Those factors are just as important as the economical ones. Don’t get me wrong, I really like those big families. And sometimes I think I’d like to have one of those big families. But I completely understand those who limit themselves to one or two.

Another great post. Thanks for your contributions.

 

[friendster324]

Fine… but why would anyone do that unless there is legitimate health reason? Having sex is very pleasurable. Having children (especially too many of them) is extra burden on the parents, and many people do not want it. Moreover, unlimited procreation (too many children) strains the available resources of the parents to care for all of them adequately. It cannot be fun to grow up when the parents simply cannot afford to feed all the children properly. To be constantly hungry is not very appealing.

Why would someone abstain? For the very same reason someone would use birth control, to prevent or postpone pregnancy. I agree with everything you said after your question. Those are very important issues but can be more or less resolved with sexual discipline. That’s the whole idea of using NFP to avoid pregnancy. There are still plenty of opportunities for a couple to enjoy sex. Abstaining from sex during high fertility times but not during low fertility is like avoiding the high calorie steak dinner and opting for a nice fish meal instead (I really don’t mean to be beating a dead horse with this analogy… it just seems to work in getting my ideas across)

Sure birth control may be convenient and may allow a couple to have sex whenever they want, but is that the way our bodies were meant to work? Why is it that intentionally purging oneself after eating is considered disordered but using birth control isn’t? (the Catholic church is one of the few groups of people that still sees it this way)