Any secular arguments against birth control?

[josephback]

Exactly - China is the perfect example of a secular reason against birth control. Secularist will never get it right, regardless of the direction they pursue or demand - as China has so aptly taught the world.

Good point. China has a one child policy and has developed an imbalance between men and women. This leads to a possibility of more agression by said country as scores of men will never marry, -but learn the army is hiring!

But seriously what WILL happen to these men that have no chance of marriage? This is an intersting sociological question.

 

[Kaninchen]

Therefore birth control destroys its adherents.

On the other hand, it might well be that the pheonomenon is multi-causal.

 

[Luvya]

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.

Not a bad attempt. Of course you did not show that the decreasing population is a bad thing. Indeed in the advanced Western societies there is a decrease of the population. In order to keep the unhealthy social net, immigration is encouraged. Of course, soon the immigrants will employ the birth control. The increased practice of birth control comes from several sources: 1) people prefer a higher standard of living, 2) due to the advance of medical sciences people tend to live longer, so a high birth rate would increase the population to an unhealthy level, and 3) due to work-saving methods and higher productivity there is no more need to child-labor, which was one of the driving factors for relentless procreation (in the third world countries it still is).

 

[Holly3278]

…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?

I did not make that up. I estimated on the years, yes. However, the fact is, using birth control reduces the fertility rate. If we reduce the fertility rate too far, we’ll quit meeting the replacement quota to keep the human species alive and gradually we’ll die out.

 

[Warrior1979]

Good point. China has a one child policy and has developed an imbalance between men and women.

Not quite. It depends on certain circumstances. If you’re part of a farm family, and you have a daughter, you may try again to have a son. The size of that population exceeds that of the U.S.

This leads to a possibility of more agression by said country as scores of men will never marry, -but learn the army is hiring!

Actually, because of cultural issues and the population control, being in the military isn’t desired. If the male dies, the parents might be too old to attempt to have another child. So, it can lead to less aggression.

But seriously what WILL happen to these men that have no chance of marriage? This is an interesting sociological question.

Some Chinese men have been getting wives from nearby countries, but I don’t know if this is specifically due the population control. It is possible that a portion of the population could revert to polyandry, polyamory, or some similar type of relationship if the situation became severe.

 

[Warrior1979]

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.

The problem is not population, but rather setting up an pyramid-type economic system. An exponentially growing population must occur for this system to sustain itself, otherwise it fails…ask Bernie Madoff. Such as system is not necessary for survival, but rather for modern conveniences.

 

[Observer3]

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.

One could also point out, that other countries have gained numbers on us because they don’t have access to birth control. There’s a lot of truth to this. We’ll be fine, and besides, why do you want this country to stay “western”? Aren’t we all equal? Who cares if your neighbor is black or Muslim or German.

Back to the original topic, there are of course some risks with the birth control drugs. Like taking an aspirin for a headache, there are some risks for certain people. However, condoms are completely safe and help reduce disease. Very pro-life in the truest sense.

 

[jawgee]

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

Our world population is growing, but our world population is also AGING. The population growth has less to do with children being born and more to do with people living longer. Most developed countries, esp. in Europe, have below-replacement fertility.

 

[jimjack]

I did not make that up. I estimated on the years, yes. However, the fact is, using birth control reduces the fertility rate. If we reduce the fertility rate too far, we’ll quit meeting the replacement quota to keep the human species alive and gradually we’ll die out.

Do you really think that we are so dumb as a species to let birth control be the death of us? Come on now. That is just ridiculous.

 

[Lady_Marchmain]

1. CANCER!
2. Upon discontinuation of “the pill”, especially the longer you have been on it, conception is delayed or sometimes impossible.

 

[jimjack]

1. CANCER!
2. Upon discontinuation of “the pill”, especially the longer you have been on it, conception is delayed or sometimes impossible.

Not all pills are the same and these arguments can’t be used against condoms. Also can you prove that the pill causes cancer? No, you can’t.

 

[samiam1611]

The lack of solid secular arguments against birth control makes me wonder why people have so much confidence in the Church’s teachings concerning morality. If practically the only reasons are religious reasons, it would make me question why She is so confident about it to be able to declare it infallibly.
There are arguments against it (which you all have said) but none that really make it seem soooo positively wrong. Either the counter-arguments cancel out or override them (such as side effects of the pill vs consequences of dangerous pregnancy). The population thing is pretty weak considering that argument could also be used for NFP, not to mention there are so many children up for adoption and in foster care that it makes much more sense to take in a child in need than to bring more into the world.

I have one secular reason to add: use of the pill, IUD’s, sterilization, etc probably leads to less condom use, which could increase your risk of an STD. Lowers your pregnancy risk but then there’s a trade-off with the higher STD risk. Of course, this wouldnt affect monogamous couples so it’s just a so-so reason too.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

The lack of solid secular arguments against birth control makes me wonder why people have so much confidence in the Church’s teachings concerning morality. If practically the only reasons are religious reasons, it would make me question why She is so confident about it to be able to declare it infallibly.

Natural law is not a religious concept. The only reason that there are no good secular arguments against ABC is because people reject any argument that makes use of the concept of final causes or teleology as religious. Of course final cause and teleology is not a religious concept and you can’t make sense of much of anything without making reference to final causes, but that point seems to be lost on most people.

 

[samiam1611]

Natural law is not a religious concept. The only reason that there are no good secular arguments against ABC is because people reject any argument that makes use of the concept of final causes or teleology as religious. Of course final cause and teleology is not a religious concept and you can’t make sense of much of anything without making reference to final causes, but that point seems to be lost on most people.

True that natural law is not a religious concept. However, altering the natural law doesn’t seem inherently evil to me. or even necessarily amoral.

 

[jimjack]

True that natural law is not a religious concept. However, altering the natural law doesn’t seem inherently evil to me. or even necessarily amoral.

And it seems ironic that people say that natural law is not a religious concept yet only Catholics seem to use the argument.

 

[Luvya]

And it seems ironic that people say that natural law is not a religious concept yet only Catholics seem to use the argument.

Of course, since the “natural law” is sheer nonsense.

 

[Abu]

samiam1611, #110
The population thing is pretty weak considering that argument could also be used for NFP, not to mention there are so many children up for adoption and in foster care that it makes much more sense to take in a child in need than to bring more into the world.

False. The neglect of children is one bane of the age, partly due to the denigration of marriage, and the lack of fidelity and love.
The myopia over 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.

Jimjack, #113
And it seems ironic that people say that natural law is not a religious concept yet only Catholics seem to use the argument

.
False.
The ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law. It’s very interesting that the Roman philosopher Cicero (died 43 B.C.) wrote in De Republica, 3.22: “True law is right reason in agreement with nature. It is of universal application, unchanging, everlasting. We cannot be freed from it by Senate or people. This law is not one thing at Rome and another at Athens, but is eternal and immutable, valid for all nations and for all times. God is the Author of it, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient to it is abandoning his true self and denying his own nature.”

The natural law is the law of human being alone—not other animals, not birds, not rocks, not trees, not planets. The natural law arises from our particular nature. It is natural insofar as it is rooted in our nature, and moral insofar as our nature defines what is good and evil for us.
Well, just what are we? We are rational, moral animals—the only rational, moral animals. We are the one animal that must think even to survive, and the one animal whose actions are not governed by instincts but are judged by standards of good and evil. We don’t consider it cruel not to teach your dog to read, but we think that keeping children from getting an education deprives them of something they should have. We don’t jail rambunctious roosters for forcing themselves on beleaguered hens, but we send men to the slammer for rape. [Dr Benjamin Wiker].

Luvya
the “natural law” is sheer nonsense

“Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise” (Thomas Gray).

 

[Abu]

Rence, #85
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?

The efficacy of NBR (NFP) is not in doubt – only those who don’t know the facts won’t be aware of its value.

Katie966, #87
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.

Too true. Well put.
Further it is a valuable aid in developing self-control which is such a necessary part of human life and action.

 

[Warrior1979]

The myopia over 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.

Exactly my point. Increased birth rates aren’t needed for anything having to do with nature, but purely to support an unsustainable, pyramid-type, debt-laden economic system. The system would fail even with increasing birth rates, simply because the increase in population doesn’t stop the exponential growth in unsustainability.

 

[Rence]

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.

That’s exactly how it is, and they’ve enjoyed this freedom for a long time. They are not going to give it up easily.

I
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.

I don’t think temperance is always a lost virtue, but definitely when it comes to sex and especially sex within a marriage, yes, people want to be able to enjoy it without consequences. That’s why secular arguments are so hard to make.