Arguments Against Artificial Contraception

[LJH_80]

There are multiple different ways to look at this. The most straightforward way to me is actually look at it from a Christian point of view and ask why Christians consider it to be a sin.*

The usual response here is that it is disordered to use some function of the body for a purpose it was not “designed” to do. The problem with this lies firstly in assigning single purposes to different functions. A simple example is running, the “purpose” of running could be argued to be to catch prey, and run away from threats. So that would mean that running for enjoyment is disordered and therefore sinful. I suspect few Catholics would support this position. But it does demonstrate the point. Much like the chewing gum example above.

Another point following on from the above is that since the “purpose” of sex is reproduction, any sex which is not “open to life” - by which is meant “capable of resulting in reproduction” -*(whether through use of contraception, non-penetrative sex etc) is sinful.*Built into this point is the assumption that sex using contraception is not “open to life”. This of course is incorrect. No method of contraception is 100% effective so every form of sex must by definition be “open to life”, its just that the odds are lower (just like for people who are infertile and who the church doesn’t ban from sex).For that matter, if Christian beliefs are true, then even sex is not required, if God decides that a woman will become pregnant then she will, whether her and her partnerwanted to, or they were using contraception, whether she was sexually active or still a virgin.

So all in all these arguments do not stand much scrutiny.

Personally I think the best argument in favour of banning contraception in married Catholics (and banning or at least stigmatising sex between non-married people)though is that it is highly beneficial for Catholicism in the long run. The reason for this is that religion is a strongly inherited characteristic, so if only people who are members in good standing of a religion (marriage is a relatively good indicator of this) are able to breed, then their children are likely to be raised in the church and the religion ensures continued dominance in the next generation.

Consider, how long do you think a religion would last if it preached total abstinence from sex? Would it or could it ever become a major global organisation like catholicism? Simply put - No. Because that particular idea would count strongly against it, even of its adherents actually accepted the idea, the religion would be self destroying (it would need continued access to a larger population of non-members to recruit from each generation in order to survive).

I think this is likely to be the richest vein if you’re looking for arguments against contraception. It comes down to an evolutionary principle of being able to out-breed competing groups by controlling peoples ability to reproduce. Having that power is advantageous for a religion and Catholicism has historically benefited greatly from this.

It’s also worth noting that since Catholicism teaches that it has access to an “absolute” morality. Then it’s probably better for the organisation not to change its position, even if 99% of its adherents ignore this particular point (because that way it’s just another thing people need forgiveness for),*rather than reverse its position and risk it’s adherents starting to question whether the churches “absolute” morality isn’t all that absolute after all.

So I think all things considered you can make a reasonably solid argument for the church maintaining its position on the subject no matter what. But you’ll probably struggle to provide a solid justification for the position in itself.*

Candide, WOW!
While your arguments make a great reason for why Christians should do this, I’m not sure if this is what the poster wanted.

The OP wants to convince people who aren’t Catholic that contraception is bad. Your argument seems to be “If we can get rid of contraception, Catholics can rule the world [insert maniacle laugh here]”

I can’t speak for every non-Catholic, but helping Catholics take over the world is not on most of our to-do lists.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Human childbirth is one such activity, sans ‘artificial’ human intervention. Should we give up procreation altogether because there is a high risk of maternal death from pregnancy and birth?

(a) Childbirth is not a widely negative consequence, with or without human intervention; thus your referencing the quote and stating the above makes little sense.
(b) You are awfully misleading about ‘high risk of maternal death.’ Worldwide maternal deaths per births ratio is about 0.0033. That is not very high. In 3rd world countries, the ratio is still a very low 0.02. If you ask me, that is not ‘high’ at all.

 

[SonCatcher]

The poster above me, whom I quoted in my response, argued that the natural way is that pleasure from sex comes with the procreative act, just like the pleasure of taste comes with nutrition. So trying to have sex but preventing procreation is like trying to have taste without nutrition.

“Taste without nutrition”

Chewing gum has taste.
Chewing gum has no nutrition.

Therefore, chewing gum is against the natural way, and is immoral.

I have a pack of “sugarless” gum in front of me. According to its label, each piece contains 1 gram of carbohydrate (sorbitol/xylitol).

Therefore, chewing gum is nutritive. The comparison fails.

 

[LJH_80]

I have a pack of “sugarless” gum in front of me. According to its label, each piece contains 1 gram of carbohydrate (sorbitol/xylitol).

Therefore, chewing gum is nutritive. The comparison fails.

Does it?
How would you compare the nutritive quantity of gum to the chance of getting pregnant with contraception?

You deliberately chose, not just a tastebringer that you spit out, but one which didn’t have any sugar in it. You could have chosen sugared gum, but instead you chose a product with artificial chemicals designed to replace the sugar. You deliberately lessened the nutritive value of the taste you wanted. The fact that you didn’t completely eliminate the nutritive value is more a fault of the product than by your desire (assumption here, but I think a fair one; you didn’t go out looking for “1g of carbohydrate” I assume you went looking for sugarless gum).
So the fact that contraception is not 100% conception-free is comparable to the sugarless gum that is not 100% nutrition free.

It was a cute try though.

 

[SonCatcher]

Does it?
How would you compare the nutritive quantity of gum to the chance of getting pregnant with contraception?

You deliberately chose, not just a tastebringer that you spit out, but one which didn’t have any sugar in it. You could have chosen sugared gum, but instead you chose a product with artificial chemicals designed to replace the sugar. You deliberately lessened the nutritive value of the taste you wanted. The fact that you didn’t completely eliminate the nutritive value is more a fault of the product than by your desire (assumption here, but I think a fair one; you didn’t go out looking for “1g of carbohydrate” I assume you went looking for sugarless gum).
So the fact that contraception is not 100% conception-free is comparable to the sugarless gum that is not 100% nutrition free.

It was a cute try though.

The reduction in calories over sugared gum was not much (5 cal vs 3.5 cal according to the label). Indeed, as I am not in the habit of chewing gum at all (the gum was on sale by the case so I picked up one for my wife - I took one of the extra packs - the fact it was sugarless was purely incidental - there wasn’t a sugared variety in the clearance bin), the net effect of chewing this gum is an increase in my overall caloric intake.

Both sorbitol and xylitol, BTW, are naturally occurring.

Your accusations are thoroughly debunked.

 

[levinas12]

Thank you for the Janet Smith talk/article.

I printed it out even though it is 25 pages long. My printer cartridge is now at half-life. But the article was well worth the effort.

I have an interest in the mind-body connection. And so I was particularly intrigued by Janet’s mention of a study of monkeys and contraception. Three female monkeys were injected with Depo-Provera. Their “husband”, Austin, stopped having sex with them. Somehow, Austin “knew” that the female monkeys were no longer fertile. The researchers then contracepted all the female monkeys in the group, and all the males stopped having sex with them and began to behave in a “turbulent and confused manner”.

One explanation is that the Depo-Provera greatly reduced or eliminated, in the female monkeys, key pheromones whose evolutionary logic was to arouse the males to have sex only with fertile females.

Does the use of contraceptives reduce female sexual attractiveness? I don’t know. But the connection between biochemistry and contraception is an interesting area to explore further.

 

[levinas12]

Dr. Janet Smith us worth listening to.

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Thank you for the Janet Smith article which I read in its entirety (all 25 pages). It was excellent.

I have an interest in the mind-body connection. So I was particularly intrigued by the study Janet mentioned involving monkeys and contraception. Female monkeys were injected with Depo-Provera and the male monkeys stopped having sex with them.

One explanation is that the contraceptive greatly reduced or eliminated the female pheromones that alerted the male monkeys to fertility cycles.

The impact of oral contraceptives on female “sexual attractiveness” is an area requiring further study. But it’s still intriguing.

There are other studies that suggest that the Pill makes women pick bad mates. Specifically, males whose major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes are too “similar” to the females. So that the offspring have weaker immune systems.

Maybe it’s not good to fool Mother Nature.

 

[LJH_80]

Still disagreeing.

First of all, Xylan occurs naturally, and is then boiled in acid to make Xylose, which can then be “naturally” hydrogenated with a catalyst or metabolised by genetically modified yeasts to create Xylitol. There are more natural ways, but those are not how industry typically does it, from my reading.

The fact that you picked it up incidentally is like you accidentally using contraception.
The fact remains that some people, even if you don’t intentionally choose options that reduce the nutrition value of things, while still getting the taste.

The chewing gum difference may be minimal, but the difference between diet and non-diet soda is not. If you’d rather I change my snarky slogan to “Contraception: as evil as Diet Coke,” I will gladly do so for accuracy.

I understand it’s tempting to try and change the subject when you’re losing an argument, so let us get back to the point we’re debating.

Deliberately reducing the nutrition value of food, while obtaining the taste is equivalent to deliberately reducing the contraception possibility of sex, while achieving the pleasure.

By this logic, someone who deliberately reduces the nutrition value of their food but maintains taste is doing the same thing as reducing the conception possibility while maintaining the pleasure of sex.

If your argument does not adress the bolded text, then you are arguing something other than the point.

 

[Rence]

Contraception has conributed greatly to the rate of divorce in this country. The general population (which supposedly has a high rate of contraceptive use) has a divorce rate of over 50%, but the rate for those who opt for NFP is less than 5%, one study even indicates less than 1%.

A high risk of divorce is one of the consequences of contraceptive use, stemming from its inherently disordered nature which harms the union of the couple, resulting in increased infidelity. Divorce, in turn, causes great harm and damage to children, both psychologically and spiritually.

How was the view of divorce factored into the percentage? If the value placed on the permanence of marriage, and the holiness placed on marriage, is not factored into the percentage, the percentage is not accurage. People who use NFP, such as practicing and traditional Catholics, consider the Sacrament more seriously and more permanent. They know the seriousness of separation/divorce, and the propect of living alone if annullment isn’t granted. Therefore, they would work harder when things got difficult, and would put up with more difficult senarios, than would someone who does not see marriage as a one-shot-deal-only. Therefore, divorce would be a very last resort anyway to a couple who has to practice NFP, and who is forbidden from even using ABCs.

Where is the study that indicates that the divorce rate for NFP users is less than 5% and less than 1%? Could you point me to it so I can see the variables that were used? Because without more information besides divorce:ABCs and divorce:NFP, the study is pretty useless due to not including important variables that influenced the outcome of the marriages.

 

[SonCatcher]

Still disagreeing.

First of all, Xylan occurs naturally, and is then boiled in acid to make Xylose, which can then be “naturally” hydrogenated with a catalyst or metabolised by genetically modified yeasts to create Xylitol. There are more natural ways, but those are not how industry typically does it, from my reading.

The fact that you picked it up incidentally is like you accidentally using contraception.
The fact remains that some people, even if you don’t intentionally choose options that reduce the nutrition value of things, while still getting the taste.

The chewing gum difference may be minimal, but the difference between diet and non-diet soda is not. If you’d rather I change my snarky slogan to “Contraception: as evil as Diet Coke,” I will gladly do so for accuracy.

I understand it’s tempting to try and change the subject when you’re losing an argument, so let us get back to the point we’re debating.

Deliberately reducing the nutrition value of food, while obtaining the taste is equivalent to deliberately reducing the contraception possibility of sex, while achieving the pleasure.

By this logic, someone who deliberately reduces the nutrition value of their food but maintains taste is doing the same thing as reducing the conception possibility while maintaining the pleasure of sex.

If your argument does not adress the bolded text, then you are arguing something other than the point.

Actually, as restated, your argument seems to invoke gluttony. As gluttony is just as mortal as contraception, I don’t have any problem with the argument.

 

[LJH_80]

My next question is: would you classify Diet Coke, margarine or skim milk in that category?

All of them are intended to give taste with less nutrition.

 

[Candide_West]

Candide, WOW!
While your arguments make a great reason for why Christians should do this, I’m not sure if this is what the poster wanted.

I’m sure you’re right, but this was as close as I could get. I simply don’t see any grounds on which to justify that contraception is immoral (I don’t consider “it’s bad because God says so” to be a justification).

I thought Levinas might have some use for these arguments when debating with fellow Catholics if the church should update its stance.

The OP wants to convince people who aren’t Catholic that contraception is bad. *Your argument seems to be “If we can get rid of contraception, Catholics can rule the world [insert maniacle laugh here]”

No, that wouldn’t help at all, if everyone stopped using contraception Catholicism would lose its selection advantage.*

It’s a bit of an odd situation really because Catholicism as a group benefits from campaigning against contraception and abortion by decreasing the incidence of its members using such things. But if it actually succeeded in banning them then it would lose that advantage. In this case the real victory lies not in winning, but in keeping the battle going.*

I can’t speak for every non-Catholic, but helping Catholics take over the world is not on most of our to-do lists.

Understood, but I figured the argument as I structured it above might be useful to Levinas.*

It’s probably worth noting that while the church clearly doesn’t literally rule the world, it is hard to think of an organisation which has the money, political clout, reach, or sheer numbers of the catholic church. So it could probably be argued to be closer than any other organisation, certainly closer than any other other organisation with such a centralised power base.

 

[SonCatcher]

My next question is: would you classify Diet Coke, margarine or skim milk in that category?

All of them are intended to give taste with less nutrition.

“intended” is an interesting word choice since there is much debate over whether they succeed (at giving taste, that is). I would say that if one is consuming them purely for the sensual pleasure, it is certainly gluttonous.

Diet Coke is also a source of needed water, however. Interestingly, it is a zero calorie food that is also linked with obesity (which is in turn assumed to be a result of gluttony).

Margarine is a fat used in cooking. (bodies need fat, as do certain cooking surfaces)

Skim milk provides hydration, protein and calcium.

I hope you will agree that the food analogy really isn’t working for the topic.

 

[GEddie]

My next question is: would you classify Diet Coke, margarine or skim milk in that category?

All of them are intended to give taste with less nutrition.

IIUC, margarine was introduced not to remove nutritive value but to bypass dairy rationing in WW2. With that long over, presumably some use it because they prefer the taste. That would not be wrong. Wrong would be using such things in order to consume more without weight gain, ie, gluttony, another sin, as has been pointed out.

Beverages are not normally considered a source of nutritive value. Their caloric content is therefore a secondary issue, ISTM.

Skim milk is made, not to remove nutrition but to remove fat. Fat, while it can be nutritious, is also dangerous to persons with some health conditions.

And I for one do not use diet Coke. To me, it does not taste the same.

ICXC NIKA

 

[SonCatcher]

I’m looking for arguments against artificial contraception.

Particularly, arguments that can be presented to anyone regardless of religious belief.

I thought about posting this thread on the moral theology subforum but decided that I would first go to the philosophy subforum. Especially because any argument would revolve around the notion of “contrary to nature” (a philosophical notion).

levinas,

I previously presented an exegesis in this forum of Mark 7:20-23 that should be helpful for instructing most “Bible-believing Christians.” Naturally, it falls short of your goal of presenting to anyone “regardless of religious belief” but may be helpful nonetheless.

[BIBLEDRB]Mark 7:20-23[/BIBLEDRB]
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

 

[danserr]

Absolutely!
And since most suicides happen on Monday, we should ban Mondays!
More logically, alcohol has been shown to be a factor in at least half of reported sexual assaults.
By this token, should we make alcohol illegal?
Guns kill more people than any other weapon Does this mean we should make guns illegal?
States with higher percentages of college degrees are more likely to be pro-choice, we should ban colleges!

1. I suggested that if engaging in an activity leads to highly undesirable consequences then this suggests that there is at least a strong presumption against that activity.

You tried to reply with a reductio ad absurdam suggesting that by the same logic we should ban mondays, since most suicides happen on mondays.

The problem is that by rejecting the principle I have suggested, you are yourself committed to an absurd conclusion, namely that the positive or negative consequences of an activity are not an important factor in whether the activity is good or bad! (This is not to take an ends-justify-the-means approach, since I only said “a” factor, not necessarily the deciding one).

Answer this: If you knew that taking a certain college course, would result of 50% people who took it becoming serial killers, would this not count as evidence that something was wrong with that course?

I think a better course is to notice that I did not say that the principle I proposed here counts as proof that the activity is wrong, only that it indicates a strong presumption that the activity is wrong. Obviously, this could be overridden for other factors, but they would have to be good ones.

The problem with your Mondays counterexample is that there is no compelling reason for thinking that banning mondays (how would that work?) would diminish suicide. There may be a good reason to think that less use of contraception would lead to less divorce, promiscuity, stds etc.

• Similar for guns, banning guns would likely have other negative consequences, leading to lack of ability to overthrow a corrupt government or perhaps concentrating guns in the hands of criminals (who would not obey a law to ban them).
• There seems to be something wrong with your alcohol and rape example too (though that seems to me your best counter-example). For instance, if I knew that my drinking alcohol would result in a 10% chance that I would commit rape, then obviously I should not drink it. I think one relevant difference, is that there is a certain level of alcohol that one can drink with no ill effects, for instance, one or two drinks, but that there is no comparison to using contraception.
• So, I think this counterexample is either a different case or actually supports my argument.
  If different: because we can drink at a certain level without ill effects, but there is no comparable case with contraception.
  If supports my argument: because if I know that going past a certain level of drinks will contribute making it significantly more likely that I will engage in harmful behavior, then it actually would be morally wrong to drink alcohol past that level.

1. I am dropping the second argument for the sake of brevity and I find it the least convincing when separated from religious reasons. I do encourage others to keep working on it, though if interested. Sometimes playing with an argument can help make it stronger.
2. This is the one I am most interested by (and I guess you were too).

I suggested that: Contraception risks putting parents in the position of standing in the wrong relationship with their children. (Pruss)

You raised two objections:

1. That this is remedied by parents who did try to prevent their children’s birth by contraception, but after birth come to love their children.
2. That the same problem attends those who use NFP.

Answer to 1: I am not questioning anyone’s ability to be a good mother, rather the question is of the morality of standing in wrong relation to one’s child by having tried to hinder their existence. Hence, there are one of two options that I see.

Option A: A contracepting couple is happy to have the new child, hence happy that their method of contraception failed. In this case, the parents repents of having tried to oppose the child’s life, which implies they recognized that they should not have used contraception to try to prevent the child’s birth.

Option B: The contracepting couple (whether happy to have the child or not) wishes that their contraception had not failed. In this case, they are still standing in wrong relation to their child have having tried to prevent the child’s life and not repenting it.

Answer to 2: In contraception a couple directly causes their body’s infertility, while in NFP, a couple merely co-operates with the natural infertility of their own bodies.

Furthermore, a contracepting couple renders the sexual act sterile by contraception. But in the case of NFP, the couple merely abstains from intercourse. Hence, there no possibility that the couple could conceive and no risk they would stand in the position of having hindered their child’s life. (Pruss says more about this at the link for those interested).

 

[LJH_80]

danserr,

I think you’re hitting on something, but let me give my semi-secular argument to this and see what you think about it.

There is nothing specifically immoral about contraception. However, since any sex can create a baby, one should not have sex with someone that one does not wish to have a baby with.
The use of contraception implies that this is exactly what is happening.

Therefore, contraception is the same as “body-disposal-kit” complete with bleach, lyme, and a shovel. The immorality is not in buying the body-disposal-kit, it’s in what you were doing that requires you to have a body disposal kit.

If the only people using contraception were married people who then found out that the woman should never, ever have kids for health reasons, I don’t think the Church would be up in arms (some might still say it was wrong, but it would be a small issue). But that’s not what’s happening.
It’s not a war on contraception, and it’s not a war on the culture that contraception creates. It’s a war on the culture that requires contraception.

That is the difference between contraception and alcohol. Alcohol can be used responsibly and is not, in itself, indicative of bad behaviors.

So what I would say to the secular friend, were I trying to convince him/her not to use contraception is to convince him/her not to do things that would require contraception. Just like I would advise people not do engage in behaviors that require a body-disposal-kit.

 

[LJH_80]

1Answer to 2: In contraception a couple directly causes their body’s infertility, while in NFP, a couple merely co-operates with the natural infertility of their own bodies.

Furthermore, a contracepting couple renders the sexual act sterile by contraception. But in the case of NFP, the couple merely abstains from intercourse. Hence, there no possibility that the couple could conceive and no risk they would stand in the position of having hindered their child’s life. (Pruss says more about this at the link for those interested).

This is the one thing I did want to touch on, because I still don’t see the logic. NFP is effective, but not 100%. I’ve heard 95-99% (comparable to the pill), but not 100%. Therefore the argument of “no possibility that the couple could conceive” doesn’t work for me. There is a chance at conception (comparable to contraception), and it is a deliberate attempt not to have children. Are either of those statements not true?

 

[levinas12]

One explanation is that the contraceptive greatly reduced or eliminated the female pheromones that alerted the male monkeys to fertility cycles.

The impact of oral contraceptives on female “sexual attractiveness” is an area requiring further study. But it’s still intriguing.

There are other studies that suggest that the Pill makes women pick bad mates. Specifically, males whose major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes are too “similar” to the females. So that the offspring have weaker immune systems.

Maybe it’s not good to fool Mother Nature.

There may be an evolutionary logic at work here. The entire biochemical machinery of both human males and females is geared to procreation. Artificial contraception sets up imbalances. So there is a breakdown in health and, in particular, sexual attraction.

For example, the Pill reduces testosterone levels in women. As a result, the women experience a reduced sex drive which in turn disrupts their relationship with men.

The Pill may also be responsible for increased frequency of strokes, clots, breast cancer, depression, etc. This also is disruptive to female-male relationships and family life.

With respect to MHC, when women on the Pill select men with similar MHC genes, there may not be strong bonding between them. What bonding exists is based on the pseudo-pregnancy biochemistry (suppressed ovulation) induced by the Pill. There is some evidence that, once a woman stops taking the Pill, she ceases to be attracted to her current partner (who has similar MHC genes) and may go in search for a man with dissimilar MHC genes.

All of this seems to be driven by ancient evolutionary mechanisms that are still in place in human beings.

 

[levinas12]

There are other studies that suggest that the Pill makes women pick bad mates. Specifically, males whose major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes are too “similar” to the females. So that the offspring have weaker immune systems.

But why would a woman pick a man with too similar MHC genes in the first place? One theory is that the Pill induces pseudo-pregnancy biochemistry (with its suppression of ovulation) so that the woman unconsciousnly seeks support as if she is really carrying a child. This need for support drives the relationship. Once the woman stops taking the Pill, there is no longer pseudo-pregnancy and the relationship ceases.

Additionally, there are studies that suggest that women are sexually attracted first and foremost to men with dissimilar MHC genes. But, with the onset of the pseudo-pregnancy biochemistry associated with the Pill, the need for such a mate disappears. This allows the woman to “bond”, albeit weakly, with a man with similar MHC genes. The weakness of the bond is reflected in the reduced sex drive associated with the Pill (which lowers testosterone levels in the woman).