Any secular arguments against birth control?

[Rence]

Does it matter? Condoms still break, even with perfect use, and the effectiveness of the pill can be affected by things we aren’t in control of, and a woman can still ovulate. Still a failure rate, even with perfect use.

Well, yeah it does matter. When used correctly the pill has a much higher success rate than when not used properly, and of course that matters, otherwise people wouldn’t be using them. Codoms have a high success rate when used properly than when not being used properly, so of couse it matters and that’s why people use them. It still enables people to engage in the marital embrace with their spouse instead of focing them to abstain. Also, as people look around them and see the high numbers of small families and the low numbers of big families (who don’t contracept), taking the chance of using something with a high rate of sucess is still appealing to them, than not using anything at all.

If you don’t use artificial birth control properly, of course the success rate will go down, and that does matter — if it didn’t matter, people wouldn’t be using it in such a huge percentage of the population as they are.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Does it matter? Condoms still break, even with perfect use, and the effectiveness of the pill can be affected by things we aren’t in control of, and a woman can still ovulate. Still a failure rate, even with perfect use.

Yes, I would say that it does matter. Everything that we do in life has a risk and most people see having an unplanned pregnancy or STI as a risk worth taking. Unless you show that sex is not good in and of itself separated from its procreative element then I don’t expect you be able to convince anyone. I honestly take larger risks just getting into work so you aren’t going to scare me away from sex by talking about failure rates.

One thing I’ve noticed is that sex can offer people something that they are willing to risk the whole world to get. You have to show that they will not get what they desire in a sexual relationship unless it is done in accord with God’s law, and other than that nothing will work.

 

[Rence]

Yes, I would say that it does matter. Everything that we do in life has a risk and most people see having an unplanned pregnancy or STI as a risk worth taking.

Unless you show that sex is not good in and of itself separated from its procreative element then I don’t expect you be able to convince anyone.

And how easy have you found this to be? It’s laughable to some people that sex isn’t good when it’s separated from it’s procreative element, and it shows very obviously in our day to day lives.

One thing I’ve noticed is that sex can offer people something that they are willing to risk the whole world to get. You have to show that they will not get what they desire in a sexual relationship unless it is done in accord with God’s law, and other than that nothing will work.

How is that accomplished in a secular environment?

 

[KostyaJMJ]

And how easy have you found this to be? It’s laughable to some people that sex isn’t good when it’s separated from it’s procreative element, and it shows very obviously in our day to day lives.

How is that accomplished in a secular environment?

I know that it is laughable and I don’t know that you can convince anyone.

I don’t think that you can convince anyone by talking about the risk of pregnancy either. Honestly if the risk isn’t something I can deal with then I can increase the effectiveness by combining methods. You can combine condoms, withdrawal, and the pill for example or use sterilization if need be. And what is the risk of pregnancy that comes with mutual masturbation anyway? If you’re responsible and use the methods effectively then the risk of pregnancy is negligible.

 

[Katie966]

Well, yeah it does matter. When used correctly the pill has a much higher success rate than when not used properly, and of course that matters, otherwise people wouldn’t be using them. Codoms have a high success rate when used properly than when not being used properly, so of couse it matters and that’s why people use them. It still enables people to engage in the marital embrace with their spouse instead of focing them to abstain. Also, as people look around them and see the high numbers of small families and the low numbers of big families (who don’t contracept), taking the chance of using something with a high rate of sucess is still appealing to them, than not using anything at all.

If you don’t use artificial birth control properly, of course the success rate will go down, and that does matter — if it didn’t matter, people wouldn’t be using it in such a huge percentage of the population as they are.

My point was that there is always the potential for failure, no matter what you do. Everyone thinks they’re always in control, until they’re not. Most people know someone or several people who became pregnant despite their efforts to do everything “correctly”. Were some of these user error? Sure, but some weren’t. Some are just because, however much we like to be 100% in control, we aren’t, unless we’re not having sex at all.

There is always the chance for some kind of malfunction, and I just think that using birth control makes people much less prepared for that “failure”, especially people who are having sex with someone who isn’t their spouse. It makes it easier for people to have sex with whoever, whenever they want, so an illusion of control is actually really a lack of self-control and discipline.

 

[Rence]

My point was that there is always the potential for failure, no matter what you do. Everyone thinks they’re always in control, until they’re not. Most people know someone or several people who became pregnant despite their efforts to do everything “correctly”. Were some of these user error? Sure, but some weren’t. Some are just because, however much we like to be 100% in control, we aren’t, unless we’re not having sex at all.

There is always the chance for some kind of malfunction, and I just think that using birth control makes people much less prepared for that “failure”, especially people who are having sex with someone who isn’t their spouse. It makes it easier for people to have sex with whoever, whenever they want, so an illusion of control is actually really a lack of self-control and discipline.

From a purely secular perspective, if there is always a potential for faiure, no matter what you do, why would someone choose NFP over artificial birth control when ABCs are easier, more convenient and have a better reputation, while NFP is frowned upon by the secular world, involves discipline that people don’t want to have and there isn’t enough good research to prove its efficacy? Even on a Catholic online forum, there is hardly a concensus about how great NFP is over ABCs. And in fact, the polls show that the majority of even Catholics is on ABCs.

Also from a purely secular perspective, most large families either employ NFP or nothing at all. While most small families employ ABCs. If someone doesn’t want to get pregnant, that obvious distinction will matter when they make their choice to use ABCs.

 

[Rence]

I know that it is laughable and I don’t know that you can convince anyone.

I don’t think that you can convince anyone by talking about the risk of pregnancy either. Honestly if the risk isn’t something I can deal with then I can increase the effectiveness by combining methods. You can combine condoms, withdrawal, and the pill for example or use sterilization if need be. And what is the risk of pregnancy that comes with mutual masturbation anyway? If you’re responsible and use the methods effectively then the risk of pregnancy is negligible.

It’s very difficult to make secular arguments against artificial birth control, that’s for sure.

 

[Katie966]

From a purely secular perspective, if there is always a potential for faiure, no matter what you do, why would someone choose NFP over artificial birth control when ABCs are easier, more convenient and have a better reputation, while NFP is frowned upon by the secular world, involves discipline that people don’t want to have and there isn’t enough good research to prove its efficacy? Even on a Catholic online forum, there is hardly a concensus about how great NFP is over ABCs. And in fact, the polls show that the majority of even Catholics is on ABCs.

Also from a purely secular perspective, most large families either employ NFP or nothing at all. While most small families employ ABCs. If someone doesn’t want to get pregnant, that obvious distinction will matter when they make their choice to use ABCs.

I think the key part is “involves discipline that people don’t want to have”.

It seems that even any arguments against birth control that don’t involve God are hard to present in a positive way when people are used to doing what they want when they want to. Anyone can talk about the benefits of only having sex within marriage and being prepared and willing to accept a pregnancy until they’re blue in the face, but when everyone is used to instant gratification, I guess it doesn’t do much good.

People want what is easy and convenient- I understand that. Temperance seems to be a lost virtue. It’s just my opinion that we could use a little more of it, instead of being disposed to acting on whims and separating the natural consequence of sex from the action. We want all the fun and none of the responsibility.

 

[Warrior1979]

It’s very difficult to make secular arguments against artificial birth control, that’s for sure.

The only ones I can think of deal with the that certain ABCs can have on the body. For example, long-term usage of certain hormones are believed to have certain adverse effects on the body. It is difficult to isolate the cause/effects, though, because our general manner of living is not in line with our natural environment. This results in a general weakening of our immune systems, which can magnify the effects of anything harmful to the body.

 

[jimjack]

I think the key part is “involves discipline that people don’t want to have”.

It seems that even any arguments against birth control that don’t involve God are hard to present in a positive way when people are used to doing what they want when they want to. Anyone can talk about the benefits of only having sex within marriage and being prepared and willing to accept a pregnancy until they’re blue in the face, but when everyone is used to instant gratification, I guess it doesn’t do much good.

People want what is easy and convenient- I understand that. Temperance seems to be a lost virtue. It’s just my opinion that we could use a little more of it, instead of being disposed to acting on whims and separating the natural consequence of sex from the action. We want all the fun and none of the responsibility.

If you are so into temperance, why abstain from sex for only one week of the month while on NFP? Why not just never have sex. That is true temperance.

The point I am trying to make is why skip that week of sex during the month if you see nothing morally wrong with ABC. There would be absolutely no reason to do so. Without the Catholic church saying that ABC is wrong, there wouldn’t be an argument about this. If the Catholics decided that ABC was OK at Vatican II you would all be tooting a different horn here.

On a side note I use a very basic form of NFP with my wife and use condoms when she is ovulating. I doubt you could convince anyone that was wrong using purely secular arguments.

 

[jimjack]

The only ones I can think of deal with the that certain ABCs can have on the body. For example, long-term usage of certain hormones are believed to have certain adverse effects on the body. It is difficult to isolate the cause/effects, though, because our general manner of living is not in line with our natural environment. This results in a general weakening of our immune systems, which can magnify the effects of anything harmful to the body.

And unfortunately this is the only secular argument that I have heard against birth control that works…and it doesn’t work with condoms. Unfortunately this argument has nothing to do with morality but has to do with side effects of a drug.

 

[Katie966]

If you are so into temperance, why abstain from sex for only one week of the month while on NFP? Why not just never have sex. That is true temperance.

The point I am trying to make is why skip that week of sex during the month if you see nothing morally wrong with ABC. There would be absolutely no reason to do so. Without the Catholic church saying that ABC is wrong, there wouldn’t be an argument about this. If the Catholics decided that ABC was OK at Vatican II you would all be tooting a different horn here.

On a side note I use a very basic form of NFP with my wife and use condoms when she is ovulating. I doubt you could convince anyone that was wrong using purely secular arguments.

Because it’s not necessary to “never have sex” while married. Temperance is about controlling desires, and moderation.

If a couple is using condoms during the fertile time, that still means they are having sex whenever they feel like it, and have no need to control themselves. I think you are missing my entire point.

 

[jimjack]

Because it’s not necessary to “never have sex” while married. Temperance is about controlling desires, and moderation.

If a couple is using condoms during the fertile time, that still means they are having sex whenever they feel like it, and have no need to control themselves. I think you are missing my entire point.

Correct, they would have no need to control themselves if they used condoms during fertile times. Are you saying there is something wrong with that?

 

[Katie966]

Correct, they would have no need to control themselves if they used condoms during fertile times. Are you saying there is something wrong with that?

I am saying that never having the need to control themselves is animalistic, so yes.

 

[Julian0404]

China is a perfect example of a secular reason against STATE MANDATED birth control. Big difference.

And what is more “secular” than the State? The difference is only that you somehow think that secular reason is individualistic, when that is not true as explained below,

sec·u·lar   
[sek-yuh-ler] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2.
not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.
3.
(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

 

[jimjack]

And what is more “secular” than the State? The difference is only that you somehow think that secular reason is individualistic, when that is not true as explained below,

sec·u·lar   
[sek-yuh-ler] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
2.
not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred): secular music.
3.
(of education, a school, etc.) concerned with nonreligious subjects.

I don’t live in China. If I use birth control it has nothing to do with the government. So using China as an argument against the privately used birth control in the western world holds no water. Outside of China the reason for using birth control IS individualistic. Your argument is complete nonsense.

 

[Holly3278]

How about the argument that if birth control is continued to use at the rate it is being used, we will all be extinct within 200 years?

 

[jimjack]

How about the argument that if birth control is continued to use at the rate it is being used, we will all be extinct within 200 years?

…lol, I didn’t realize we were supposed to make things up. How about the argument that if you use a condom you will die immediately.

If the world population is growing with our current rate of birth control how would we go extinct?

 

[josephback]

The title says all. I heard the religious arguments. Are there any purely secular ones?

Birth Control has spread like wildfire across the Western world these past 50 years and Europe at least as a result is dying off. This results in mass immigration to merely keep the economy stable and is leading if not soon checked to a massive day of reckoning for the West. We are commiting societal suicide. There will be no West or a very small West in the future because we are simply not reproducing ourselves. Therefore birth control destroys its adherents. The grestest remnant of our civilization in another 50 years will be in the countries lacking widespread birth control(Africa, Latin America) where we previously have exported our culture and values to. But the West as we know it is largely dying.

 

[josephback]

If the world population is growing with our current rate of birth control how would we go extinct?

The parts of the world that are growing tend to lack access to the pill. Their views on children are also more accomodating. We won’t be extinct in 200 years, but birth rates and economics wil combine to create mass immgration from these areas to the West, and that will lead to social upheaval and strife. Unless we can win the newcomers to our values a clash is inevitable. The question is who will win…