Any secular arguments against birth control?

[Luvya]

The morality of an action does not depend on efficiency but on intention. As has been clearly expressed, God’s natural moral law intends intercourse for the procreation of children – any use of this by anyone while at the same time putting a man-made barrier (physical, chemical) against procreation is a lie concerning the act, as it frustrates the primary purpose of the act. The infertile period is usually observable and may be used regularly only when there are serious reasons.

That the marital act may be completely divorced from its objective of procreation by self-imposing a barrier while acting, and thus having separated the act from its consequences opens the door to using sex with anyone or anything, such as masturbation, bestiality, homosexuality, IVF, cloning. That’s why God has implanted the natural moral law within human nature, so that we can use our reason from cause to effect.

You keep contradicting yourself. This “natural law” now “belongs” to God - and as such it is not divorced from Christianty, it is not secular any more. No, it has not been “clearly expressed” that sex MUST include a desire to procreate. This is simply a Christian assertion, and has no factual or even logical underpinning. If two people wish to express their love toward each other that is a sufficient reason to engage in sex. Anything and everything is acceptable between consenting adults. (Masturbation is healthy and natural. Bestiality is wrong, since the animal cannot consent. Consensual homosexuality is fine. IVF has nothing to do with the subject, nor does cloning. You seem to be seriously confused to bring these up.)

 

[Abu]

Luvya
A “law” pertaining to what? Enforced by whom? Growing tomatoes? A “law” is not a law unless it is enforced.

The confusion so evident here displays a frightful antipathy to reason – the failure to appreciate that plants require nurture according to the nature of plants in order to flourish demonstrates how prejudices can cloud reality. The laws of nature apply throughout creation and are observed in the physical laws in the universe – an intelligent plan directing the actions of the agents to their end. Such laws require a lawgiver and designer – God.

Positive law is law prepared by the government of a State – man-made laws which grant or remove specific rights upon an individual or group. Such laws are enforced by the State.

The natural moral law applies only to mankind.

The secular arguments against the natural moral law, upon which the feelings of such as Luvya are based are abysmally deficient because they fail to face the reality of the design and order which require a lawgiver. The support of masturbation as healthy and natural, and of homomania, shows the anything goes attitude prevailing. Luvya feels that “bestiality is wrong, since the animal cannot consent” – a purely personal feeling again.

But Professor Peter Singer: “It is a fact that there is sexual contact between some humans and animals. I was raising the question why we have such a taboo on this. Sometimes it involves cruelty and the infliction of power and dominance on an animal, and clearly I oppose that. There can be occasions, I don’t know how much vivid description you want.
Women have said this is something that pleases them, the dog is free to do it or walk away, there’s no dominance over the dog, that seems harmless.”
[Peter Singer, of Harvard]

Such is the unreality of the froth being trotted out.

But our status as the only rational, moral animal is the source of our natural belief that human beings are distinct from other animals. That is the origin of all laws against murder, for the notion of “murder” assumes that killing a human being is fundamentally distinct from killing a chicken, and that the murderer actually had the moral freedom not to kill (otherwise, jailing the man would make as much sense as jailing the knife). Let go of this fundamental assumption, and soon killing anything will be considered murder (as some animal rights activists maintain) and a murderer’s DNA will be the only culprit (as genetic determinists maintain).
Dr. Benjamin Wiker

 

[Luvya]

the failure to appreciate that plants require nurture according to the nature of plants in order to flourish

Oh, please. No one says anything along these lines.

The laws of nature apply throughout creation and are observed in the physical laws in the universe – an intelligent plan directing the actions of the agents to their end.

What is the “end” of an Earthquake? What “intelligent” plan directs the viruses to wreak havoc in the bodies of the hosts? The word “law” in the phrase “physical law” is a misnomer. And the lack of “intelligence” in nature is simply too obvious.

Such laws require a lawgiver and designer – God.

Unsupported assertion. Just once I would like to see a proof of this. But I never will. (Obviously, since if it could be PROVEN rationally, then faith would not be necessary any more.)

Positive law is law prepared by the government of a State – man-made laws which grant or remove specific rights upon an individual or group. Such laws are enforced by the State.

Yes, that is correct. But it has nothing to do with the topic.

The secular arguments against the natural moral law, upon which the feelings of such as Luvya are based are abysmally deficient because they fail to face the reality of the design and order which require a lawgiver.

Go ahead and PROVE the existence of a “lawgiver”. The inability to PROVE is the abysmal deficiency of your “argument”. Indeed, the universe exhibits order. But it is a fallacy (alas, much too common) to confuse order with design.

The support of masturbation as healthy and natural, and of homomania, shows the anything goes attitude prevailing.

If only you would pay attention to what I am saying. I said that anything goes between consenting adults. Why do you need to twist what I am saying? Because you have no argument against it?

Luvya feels that “bestiality is wrong, since the animal cannot consent” – a purely personal feeling again.

Everything outside the purely deductive, axiomatic systems is tainted by personal feelings.

But Professor Peter Singer: “It is a fact that there is sexual contact between some humans and animals. I was raising the question why we have such a taboo on this. Sometimes it involves cruelty and the infliction of power and dominance on an animal, and clearly I oppose that. There can be occasions, I don’t know how much vivid description you want.
Women have said this is something that pleases them, the dog is free to do it or walk away, there’s no dominance over the dog, that seems harmless.”
[Peter Singer, of Harvard]

Sure, just like an organic vibrator. Dogs can be trained to give sexual stimuli to women. The dog in these cases gets a reward for the behavior. Just like you can train a dog to fetch a stick. As far as the dog is concerned there is no difference. You can teach a dog pretty much anything. Again, this has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[Warrior1979]

The natural moral law applies only to mankind.

I would have to be defined that way, otherwise it would fail miserably. Example:

The support of masturbation as healthy and natural, and of homomania, shows the anything goes attitude prevailing.

Masturbation occurs naturally in nature amongst other animals. Homosexual acts also occur, but less frequently.

 

[Debora123]

So what? The majority of these new zygotes are naturally flushed out from the woman’s system. Of course to call a zygote a “person” is nonsense. Without a working brain there is no such thing as a “person”.

So at what point does one become a person? Or we can use the word “human being” if you consider that to be more appropriate than calling it a person.

 

[Luvya]

So at what point does one become a person? Or we can use the word “human being” if you consider that to be more appropriate than calling it a person.

As soon as there is a working human brain producing a human mind. Up until that point it is bunch of cells, which will become a human being - unless something untoward happens. As you said, until a successful implantation happens there is no such thing as pregnancy.

 

[Debora123]

As soon as there is a working human brain producing a human mind. Up until that point it is bunch of cells, which will become a human being - unless something untoward happens.

What do you mean by “something untoward happens?”

The brain starts off as just a few cells, and from that point on it is constantly changing and developing up until the person dies. So is it the developmental stage of the brain then that defines whether or not we are human?

What about handy capped people who don’t have fully functioning brains?

As you said, until a successful implantation happens there is no such thing as pregnancy.

No, not a pregnancy in the medical term… but there is still a life that is unique to itself and separate from that of its mother. Think about it this way - your life didn’t begin, when you were implanted into your mothers womb. That is not when you came into existence. Your life began the minute you got conceived. Implantation is a necessary step in the process of development, but it is not when a life begins.

 

[Sullibe]

I’m curious, Luvya, as to what your intentions are in your series of questions?
It seems that the only acceptable answer you will find is when one finally agrees with you.

And you said, " I said that anything goes between consenting adults"

Even the 45 year old father and his 23 year old consenting daughter?

 

[samiam1611]

I suppose you’re right… technically, medically, etc, PREGNANCY starts when the fertilized egg implants. But LIFE begins at conception. When sperm and egg meet, a brand new set of DNA is created that is unique to that individual and exists no where else in the world. That right there is a new person… a new human being, whether it is implanted or not.

Now to answer your question, you’re right, it is licit for women to be on the pill for medical purposes and she is not required to abstain during that time. This is because in this case, the woman wouldn’t be taking the pill to contracept, she would be doing it for health reasons bc she has no other choice. You can read a little more about it here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618

As for the morning after pill, it can be used on a rape victim *only if *no conception has taken place (in other words, she’d have to get tested first). The morning after pill works in 1 of 2 ways… it prevents conception from happening by keeping the sperm inside the woman’s body from ever reaching the egg OR it keeps an already fertilized egg from implanting. The first is ok, the latter, not so much. No human life is ended in the process, and no abortion has taken place.

I hope that answers your question!

Thank you for responding. I did read that link but I am not satisfied with the answer and I will attempt to explain why.
For one thing, the medical (secular) definition of a miscarriage/abortion (technically they are the same “physical evil” as that apologist explained) is the termination of pregnancy: expulsion of an embryo or fetus. The “newly conceived baby” as you put it is neither of those things. It is a zygote. And as you admitted, a fertilized egg is not the definition of pregnancy either. So isn’t the apologist’s/your definition of miscarriage/abortion (whether intended or not) a misnomer? In other words…wrong?

The other thing is, even if I were to ignore the fact (or if you can convince me I’m wrong) that the Church is using an inaccurate definition of miscarriage/abortion, the other problem is that most women (especially Catholics I’m sure) are aware that HBC can interfere with implantation. So even if the woman is taking the Pill or whatever for licit reasons, she has to know that she may be preventing some zygotes (or blastocysts) from implanting. She knows this, and takes the Pill anyway. And this is licit. I know it’s not intended, but it’s not completely unintended either since it is done with full knowledge that this can happen. It’s like in between.

One last thing, I just read for the first time about 2 seconds ago, is “Breastfeeding greatly suppresses ovulation, but eventually an ovum is released. Luteal phase defect, caused by breastfeeding, makes the uterine lining hostile to implantation and as such may prevent implantation after fertilization.” (source) So LAM, a licit method of birth control, may have the same effect and HBC and the morning after pill! (In all 3 cases these are secondary mechanisms anyway but they are the most relevent with regards to ethics)

There is another thing I wonder about which you probably don’t know the answer to. I am aware of that rule about not giving the morning after pill if the woman has already ovulated. The test that I am aware of that would help determine this is early pregnancy factor (EPF) level which shows up shortly after fertilization, days before implantation and the classic test for pregnancy, hCG. However, this test take time (days), and time is of the essence when taking the morning after pill. Now, luteinizing hormone (LH) may be a useful test too (there is a surge shortly before ovulation)…but how could they know if it was on the upswing or downswing? And this one takes days too I believe! Surely the hospital would not wait days for the test results to come back. Don’t you think they probably give it to her anyway? I am just guessing here. Do you know of some other test that is faster?

Putting all this together, I still am of the opinion that with regards to human life, hormonal birth control and barrier methods are equally moral. (or some would say immoral. Nevertheless, equals.)

p.s. Your point was not lost on me about the fertilized egg having a new set of DNA and stuff…this is more for debate than like actual argument, if that makes sense. Also, hopefully it is not too far off topic of the OP but once I got started writing I found I had a lot to say!

 

[Katie966]

There is another thing I wonder about which you probably don’t know the answer to. I am aware of that rule about not giving the morning after pill if the woman has already ovulated. The test that I am aware of that would help determine this is early pregnancy factor (EPF) level which shows up shortly after fertilization, days before implantation and the classic test for pregnancy, hCG. However, this test take time (days), and time is of the essence when taking the morning after pill. Now, luteinizing hormone (LH) may be a useful test too (there is a surge shortly before ovulation)…but how could they know if it was on the upswing or downswing? And this one takes days too I believe! Surely the hospital would not wait days for the test results to come back. Don’t you think they probably give it to her anyway? I am just guessing here. Do you know of some other test that is faster?

Ultrasound.

 

[samiam1611]

Ultrasound.

I’m pretty sure a single cell (ovum) wouldn’t show up on an ultrasound.

 

[Debora123]

Thank you for responding. I did read that link but I am not satisfied with the answer and I will attempt to explain why.
For one thing, the medical (secular) definition of a miscarriage/abortion (technically they are the same “physical evil” as that apologist explained) is the termination of pregnancy: expulsion of an embryo or fetus. The “newly conceived baby” as you put it is neither of those things. It is a zygote. And as you admitted, a fertilized egg is not the definition of pregnancy either. So isn’t the apologist’s/your definition of miscarriage/abortion (whether intended or not) a misnomer? In other words…wrong?

You’re quite welcome!

I think what we’re getting at ultimately here is just kind of a play on words.

The medical definition of pregnancy begins when implantation takes place. -------> Soooo technically, ending a life that is not yet implanted is not ending a pregnancy if a pregnancy is only defined by the implantation itself.

If it is put that way, then yeah, I guess a “pregnancy” wouldn’t be ended. But ultimately the concern is that of the human life that already exists prior to implantation taking place, not with the medical definition of ending a pregnancy. Either way, a life is terminated. Life is sacred.

Does that help? Does that answer your question?

The other thing is, even if I were to ignore the fact (or if you can convince me I’m wrong) that the Church is using an inaccurate definition of miscarriage/abortion, the other problem is that most women (especially Catholics I’m sure) are aware that HBC can interfere with implantation. So even if the woman is taking the Pill or whatever for licit reasons, she has to know that she may be preventing some zygotes (or blastocysts) from implanting. She knows this, and takes the Pill anyway. And this is licit. I know it’s not intended, but it’s not completely unintended either since it is done with full knowledge that this can happen. It’s like in between.

Right, but unfortunately some women really don’t have a choice. Some women have such messed up problems down there, that they would really be putting themselves in serious danger if they didn’t take the right medication (which sometimes just so happens to be HBC, and only HBC). It is not intended bc they are not on the drug by choice, if that makes sense.

One last thing, I just read for the first time about 2 seconds ago, is “Breastfeeding greatly suppresses ovulation, but eventually an ovum is released. Luteal phase defect, caused by breastfeeding, makes the uterine lining hostile to implantation and as such may prevent implantation after fertilization.” (source) So LAM, a licit method of birth control, may have the same effect and HBC and the morning after pill! (In all 3 cases these are secondary mechanisms anyway but they are the most relevent with regards to ethics)

I’m not sure about that one… I can’t say I’ve ever heard that argument and that connection being made before. You might wanna ask an apologist?

My guess is that you can’t really compare breastfeeding your child to taking a contraception pill when there are other contraceptive alternatives out there. See what I’m saying? One thing is breastfeeding your child… and the other is taking a contraceptive pill (especially since there are other alternatives). That’s just my logical, common sense argument against it though, I don’t know how the Church goes about justifying that one. Good question though!

There is another thing I wonder about which you probably don’t know the answer to. I am aware of that rule about not giving the morning after pill if the woman has already ovulated. The test that I am aware of that would help determine this is early pregnancy factor (EPF) level which shows up shortly after fertilization, days before implantation and the classic test for pregnancy, hCG. However, this test take time (days), and time is of the essence when taking the morning after pill. Now, luteinizing hormone (LH) may be a useful test too (there is a surge shortly before ovulation)…but how could they know if it was on the upswing or downswing? And this one takes days too I believe! Surely the hospital would not wait days for the test results to come back. Don’t you think they probably give it to her anyway? I am just guessing here. Do you know of some other test that is faster?

Haha, I have NO idea. All I know is that they somehow determine (or maybe they don’t?) that fertilization has not yet taken place, and it is therefore safe to take the morning after pill. I’m not a doctor, nor have I ever been a victim of rape (thank goodness!). I’m sure someone more well versed on the subject could def help you out though. Maybe you can make a new thread about it? I would think someone on here is bound to know the answer and reply…

Putting all this together, I still am of the opinion that with regards to human life, hormonal birth control and barrier methods are equally moral. (or some would say immoral. Nevertheless, equals.)

p.s. Your point was not lost on me about the fertilized egg having a new set of DNA and stuff…this is more for debate than like actual argument, if that makes sense. Also, hopefully it is not too far off topic of the OP but once I got started writing I found I had a lot to say!

No problem, you made some great points and had good arguments. I hope you get all your answers.

 

[friendster324]

I don’t see how this analogy works. binging and purging damages your body such as your esophagus and teeth. Also the experience of throwing up is repulsive to most people, which is one of the things that makes the flu so unpleasant. And I don’t agree it’s enough to say ‘well this analogy shows there is a right way and a wrong way to do things.’ The analogy needs to work. I don’t see how it works.

How can the loving experience of a married couple having sex be compared to chronic purging which involves nausea and damage to the esophagus, gums, fingers (from putting them down your throat), electrolyte balance, and other aspects of the body? I don’t see it.

I completely understand that no analogy is ever perfect, this one included. I wonder though, did you read the other posts I made before this one? This analogy is a continuation of what I posted previously. Taken by itself I can definitely understand how it could be misinterpreted.

 

[Luvya]

I’m curious, Luvya, as to what your intentions are in your series of questions?
It seems that the only acceptable answer you will find is when one finally agrees with you.

No, but any acceptable answer must be rational and reasonable. And if it proves me wrong, so be it.

And you said, " I said that anything goes between consenting adults"

Even the 45 year old father and his 23 year old consenting daughter?

If one takes the Genesis as a literal description of what transpired there, then the only way of propagating the human race was by incest. Adam and Eve were directly created. They brought forth their children. The next generation needed incest in some form. Either parent to child or sibling to sibling. If it was OK back then, then why should it be a no-no today?

The scenario you mentioned is ill advised. If there is an unfortunate event of procreation, the progeny will have a serious chance of defects. That is the reason why incest became a social taboo.

 

[Luvya]

What do you mean by “something untoward happens?”

Spontaneous abortion. It happens.

The brain starts off as just a few cells, and from that point on it is constantly changing and developing up until the person dies. So is it the developmental stage of the brain then that defines whether or not we are human?

When the neurons start to fire. That is when the mind starts. It happens about at the end of the first trimester. It is the decisive event, the activity of the brain. That is when we can start to talk about a person.

What about handy capped people who don’t have fully functioning brains?

It depends on the remaining functionality. Life is not always black and white. Poor Terry Schiavo did not have enough of her brain left which would function to sustain personhood.

No, not a pregnancy in the medical term… but there is still a life that is unique to itself and separate from that of its mother. Think about it this way - your life didn’t begin, when you were implanted into your mothers womb. That is not when you came into existence. Your life began the minute you got conceived. Implantation is a necessary step in the process of development, but it is not when a life begins.

Indeed. And why is it relevant? There is nothing special about “life”. Personhood is where it becomes important.

 

[razredge]

Indeed. And why is it relevant? There is nothing special about “life”. Personhood is where it becomes important.

Actually, the Church doesn’t teach that the soul (which is necessary for personhood) begins at conception - the question remains open.

I agree that pregnancy begins at implantation as otherwise there is a huge number of miscarriages happening all the time. Ironically, NFP actually causes far more of these miscarriages than the Pill does (due to the fact that the Pill prevents ovulation).

 

[Abu]

Warrior1979
Masturbation occurs naturally in nature amongst other animals. Homosexual acts also occur, but less frequently.

An excellent example of the misuse of reason, and the inability to understand clearly expressed facts and reality for the prejudice that there are no moral laws for mankind – just like animals as Luvya contends also – that consenting adults can do whatever they please.

This ridicules the reality that “Our status as the only rational, moral animal is the source of our natural belief that human beings are distinct from other animals”, as Dr. Benjamin Wiker affirms.
“The Ten Commandments are, in moral substance, not unique to the ancient Jews. As C. S. Lewis noted in his Abolition of Man, the moral commands to honor parents, not murder, not lie, not steal, and so on, are found everywhere. They are found everywhere because they arise from human nature. To ignore them, or manipulate them, can only result in the destruction of human nature, the Abolition of Man.” [Benjamin Wiker holds a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University.]
Indeed as post #134 illustrates.

These secular prejudices are all based on denying the very order and design in the world and acknowledging that such design requires a designer, an intelligence who is God the Creator of all herein.

Luvya
Everything outside the purely deductive, axiomatic systems is tainted by personal feelings.

Nothing deductive in denying reality. If, as such atheists claim, God does not exist and all of us are simply the byproducts of natural selection’s “survival of the fittest,” why shouldn’t the strong among us dominate and kill off the weak? Why shouldn’t we adopt an “every man for himself” attitude and get what we want from whomever we want it by whatever means we can get it? Atheism can offer no meaningful, much less plausible, answer to that question.

 

[Luvya]

These secular prejudices are all based on denying the very order and design in the world and acknowledging that such design requires a designer, an intelligence who is God the Creator of all herein.

No, I do not deny order. Order is everywhere. You still confuse order with design. Order does not require and orderer, while design does require a designer. All you have to do is PROVE that there is God.

Nothing deductive in denying reality. If, as such atheists claim, God does not exist and all of us are simply the byproducts of natural selection’s “survival of the fittest,” why shouldn’t the strong among us dominate and kill off the weak? Why shouldn’t we adopt an “every man for himself” attitude and get what we want from whomever we want it by whatever means we can get it? Atheism can offer no meaningful, much less plausible, answer to that question.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. It is not supposed to do more than that. However, there is good old mathematics, namely game theory which does offer us practical advice how to conduct our life. And it clearly proves that the “all men for himself” is an inferior strategy. Just like the “turn the other cheek” is an inferior strategy. Mathematics is, of course, neither theistic nor atheistic. See here…

 

[Abu]

razredge, #153
Actually, the Church doesn’t teach that the soul (which is necessary for personhood) begins at conception - the question remains open.

In the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, 1995, #60, Blessed John Paul II teaches: “Some try to justify abortion by claiming that the product of conception, at least until a certain number of days, cannot yet be considered a personal human life.” But he continued firmly: “In reality from the moment in which the ovum is fertilised, a new life begins which is not that of the father or of the mother but of a new human being which develops of its own accord. It would never be made human if it were not human already." And he affirms: "This has always been clear, and modern genetic science offers clear confirmation”.

 

[Abu]

Luvya
You still confuse order with design. Order does not require and orderer, while design does require a designer.

Unfamiliarity with science can produce the confusion you exhibit.

“…science is the study of the law and order that inheres in the substance of the universe, not the study of the supposed absence of law and order.”
[Ronald C. Dressman, *Not by Chance: A Theory of Evolution Governed by Essential Law and Driven by Natural Effectuation, reviewed by Msgr John F. McCarthy]
rtforum.org/lt/lt127.html

“And yet modern empirical science does know that there is order and design in the universe. To verify this I should like to introduce a highly technical work published in 1998 by well-known microbiologist Michael Denton of New Zealand under the title of Nature’s Destiny (hereinafter ND)6, in which he undertakes, first, to set forth the strictly scientific evidence for the belief that “the cosmos is uniquely fit for life as it exists on earth and for organisms of design and biology very similar to our own species, Homo sapiens,” and second, “to argue that this ‘unique fitness’ of the laws of nature for life is entirely consistent with the older teleological religious concept of the cosmos as a specially designed whole, with life and mankind as its primary goal and purpose (ND, xi).”
Note:
6. M.J. Denton, *Nature’s Destiny *(New York: The Free Press: a division of Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1998).
rtforum.org/lt/lt122.html (The Myth Of The Self-Made Universe, Msgr John F McCarthy)

Dr. Stephen M. Barr, a theoretical particle physicist at the Bartol Research Institute of the University of Delaware:
“We do live in a universe whose order, in the sense of observance of its mathematical rules, “is perfect, or nearly so” (MPAF, p. 108). Modern Physics and Ancient Faith]
rtforum.org/lt/lt128.html

All you have to do is PROVE that there is God.

Hardly – this a Catholic DB and Christ’s Church, having been founded by God the Son doesn’t have to prove His existence, nor is this thread about the many proofs for the existence of God.
Volcanoes erupting or tsunamis occurring happen because that is the way nature is designed. And yet God still controls the universe. He can still use events to punish sinners, as the Old Testament shows.