Arguments Against Artificial Contraception

[levinas12]

The weakness of the bond is reflected in the reduced sex drive …

I should have said “the weakness of the bond is **exacerbated **by the reduced sex drive”.

The fact is that the man with the similar MHC genes is really not an evolutionary “preference” in the first place. The reduced sex drive of the woman only makes this situation worse.

Apparently, pheromones play a big role in this. The man with dissimilar MHC genes gives off strongly “attractive” pheromones whereas the man with similar MHC genes does not.

It is interesting that Freud alludes to the olfactory function in the sexuality of non-human animals in his Civilization and Its Discontents. There are two unusually long footnotes which argue that when pre-humans stood up on their hind legs and assumed a vertical posture, the role of olfactory stimuli was diminished and the visual cues became much more important.

After Freud, studies suggested the contrary. The basis for sexual attraction may still be caught up in the “olfactory”, i.e., pheromones which signal fertility in the females, or provide “information” on MHC genes.

If artificial contraception interferes with this “pheromonic” communication between the sexes, then it is indeed “contrary to nature”. The dismal consequence is ironically the gradual disappearance of eros.

(May all Christian believers have a blessed Easter. I’ll be back next week.)

 

[Sair]

(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.

Maternal death is widely accepted as a negative consequence of childbirth, even if childbirth itself is a positive outcome. That answered the criterion stated by the poster to whom I responded.

Up until the advent of ‘artificial’ human intervention in the process of giving birth, death in childbirth was the number-one cause of death for women, at least in Western society - I don’t know about worldwide. These days there has been an immense reduction in maternal death in childbirth, it is true - but that is precisely ::because:: of medical intervention in the process, both through improved (and greatly increased) monitoring of maternal and foetal health and historically, the realisation (thanks to scientific investigation) that proper hygiene plays a critical role in avoiding infections such as septicaemia.

I maintain the point I was attempting to support regarding ‘artificial’ contraception - the fact that it’s not ‘natural’ is really not an argument against it. Death and disease are perfectly natural occurrences, but we generally try to avoid them. It isn’t natural for us to use things like toothpastes and synthetic drugs, yet there is no real outcry against these in religious circles.

And what’s more, perception and circumstance play a hugely important role in whether a certain consequence of an action is deemed positive or negative. For a couple who are not in favourable circumstances for raising children, or who simply have no desire to be parents, the prevention of pregnancy is a positive outcome, whilst successful conception would be a disaster. On top of this, far from contraceptive use going against the natural ‘design’ of the human body, it’s quite obvious from an anatomical point of view that the human body was indeed ‘designed’ to have sex for reasons other than procreation, such as pleasure and social bonding. The proportion of acts of sexual intercourse that result in pregnancy, even during a woman’s fertile time (something like 20%, I believe) would seem to suggest that pregnancy is not necessarily its primary function. We don’t have sex like most other animals - infrequently and only during a specific season - so why is this the only aspect of our lives in which we are expected, by sex-negative moralists, to behave like other animals?

To be fair, there’s a lot to be said for NFP, in that it works with the body and a woman’s natural cycle of fertility - even if it requires abstinence during the times when a woman’s body is most receptive to sexual stimulation (assuming that avoidance of pregnancy is the desired outcome - it also works the other way around, of course). But by the same token, there are much better ways to regulate other aspects of our health, such as weight, than through using appetite suppressants or more drastically, surgical procedures - a healthy diet and an adequate amount of exercise are the slower, but ultimately more effective means of regulating weight and metabolism. But strangely enough, I don’t hear church representatives crying foul over the “artificial” means people use to lose weight (even though so many of them don’t even work, certainly in the long term). What gives? These things are just as “unnatural” as artificial contraception, and they can also do harm to people. Where do natural law ethicists stand upon such matters?

 

[danserr]

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.

An interesting suggestion. I’m actually still thinking about the best way to put this. I think there might be a broad implication for the argument as a specific one. The broad implication is that given the probability that contraception contributes to these negative consequences, this counts as evidence (or to put it another way- counts as a strong presumption) that contraception is probably wrong. This has the benefit of being a very modest argument that doesn’t make grand claims. I know some people like knock-down arguments, but we don’t always get those and the more modest ones can be helpful too.

As far as convincing a specific friend that it is wrong, what I said above would work to convince him broadly speaking that it is wrong. In terms of specifically why he should not use it, I’m not as sure. Broadly considered, the negative effects should still be a consideration, but specifically, yes maybe the trick would also be to convince him not to do the things that require contraception.

I admit that I’m uncomfortable with the claim that this argument might imply that there is nothing immoral about contraception, only the behaviors that it entails. Certainly that would not be true of Pruss’s argument, but it might of the first one I suggested. And it does seem plausible that were contraception only used in the very narrow situation you mention that the Church would still consider it wrong, (and it would be wrong because forbidden by a just and loving God), it would be a smaller issue than it is today.

I think there is still an implication, though, that contraception itself is wrong, because the idea is that the thing itself contributes to these negative effects, then this is evidence that the thing itself is wrong.

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?

I assume you mean this in response to Pruss’s argument, but I’ll try to apply my answer to it and more broadly.

Pruss says here that one argument against contraception is that it risks placing parents in the position of having tries to engage in activity directly opposed to their child’s life.

Why is NFP different.

1. In NFP parents typically try to avoid conception by abstinence. In this circumstance then, there is no chance of pregnancy and hence no risk that parents will have a child whose existence they actively tried to prevent. This, then, should be uncontroversial.
2. If they have sex on a day they know they might get pregnant (even if they think the chance is lower), then likewise, there is no problem.
3. I think at worst (this would probably be the rarest situation), a couple may believe themselves to be infertile, but actually be fertile and have sex anyway.

• Even now, I don’t think that this is enough to say that the couple actively hindered their child’s existence (especially compared to contraception). Ar worst, they are trying to abstain from conceiving, which seems less wrong than actively trying to prevent.

More broadly, there does seem to me to be a legitimate and important moral difference between permitting the natural infertility of one’s own body and causing one’s body to be infertile. In one case a couple merely co-operates with the natural infertility of their own bodies, in the other, they cause their bodies infertility.

Or put it another way. The sin is not the use of contraception broadly, but the individual contracepting act. So, in having sex and using contraception, a couple errs. But, how would this apply to a couple using NFP. There is no sin in having uncontracepted sex. There a sin in having it on a day that one knows that one is fertile. Furthermore, there is no sin in having uncontracepted sex on a day that one believes oneself to be infertile. So, it is hard to see how NFP is the same as contraception on these grounds.

 

[danserr]

Maternal death is widely accepted as a negative consequence of childbirth, even if childbirth itself is a positive outcome. That answered the criterion stated by the poster to whom I responded.

There were two criterion. There was also the criterion of the consequence having to be widespread and significant. As this poster has shown the consequence of maternal death is very very low.

Second, the alternative is that no one have children, which would have an even worse consequence. There is no comparably worse consequence from people ceasing to contracept, having sex more responsibly and using NFP instead.

 

[Sair]

There were two criterion. There was also the criterion of the consequence having to be widespread and significant. As this poster has shown the consequence of maternal death is very very low.

Second, the alternative is that no one have children, which would have an even worse consequence. There is no comparably worse consequence from people ceasing to contracept, having sex more responsibly and using NFP instead.

I’m not sure that a reduction in the human population of the earth would be a wholly negative consequence, despite the alarmist cries of economists. Certainly there would be no negative consequence of people having sex more responsibly - but most people’s ideas about sexual responsibility include the use of some form of contraception. Most of the people who use artificial contraception are people who will, at some point, actually have a child that they want and plan for. I suspect that any representative study, if one could be done, would demonstrate that these people love their children just as much as those who use NFP or just “leave it up to God”.

From a realistic perspective, there will never be a time when every person is having sex responsibly within the context of a loving, committed relationship, just like there will never be a time when every overweight person opts for long-term diet and exercise modification over pills and surgery to reach a healthier weight. The consequences of denying the latter access to the pills and surgery would be that they remain overweight and probably die prematurely. The consequences of some people having sex without the use of contraception will be children who grow up in abusive households, or with parents who are unprepared to care for them, or in poor financial circumstances. These things obviously don’t matter if one’s only concern is the quantity of human life that exists - but quality of life does actually mean something to those who are in it.

 

[Gblat]

Arguments for contraception.

Contraception promotes reckless behavior by seeming to prevent some of its effects. This is why we should also remove seat belts and air bags from cars to promote safer driving.

Most of the arguments that aren’t theological come down to this.

“People have no business having sex with someone they don’t want to have a baby with.”
So you increase the chance of babies and hope people behave more responsibly because of increased consequence.

This reduces the spread of STDs, unwed pregnancy, abortion, etc.

But it essentially comes down to “If you take all the seat belts of of the cars, and instead put a big spike on the steering wheel, people will drive better.”

Hey, this is brilliant! Thanks!

 

[levinas12]

There is an intriguing connection between the Pill, the breakdown of family life and the rise of Statism. See Mary Eberstadt, Adam and Eve after the Pill: Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution. Also of interest is Charles Murray, Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010.

 

[levinas12]

I’m not sure that a reduction in the human population of the earth would be a wholly negative consequence, despite the alarmist cries of economists.

I’m not sure “alarmist” is the right word here.

Birthrates are falling precipitously all over the world (Europe, Asia, Latin America, even some Islamic countries). The obvious exception is Africa. But Africa has another problem: the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Demographic winter has arrived.

It will become increasingly difficult to sustain welfare/heathcare/social security systems, economic activity and national security.

Aging and dying societies are not pretty.

And we have the sexual revolution to thank for this demographic debacle.

 

[Abu]

Sair #17
The “unnatural” argument will never wash, because it’s also an argument against any artificial contrivance humans have ever come up with.
#40
there are much better ways to regulate other aspects of our health, such as weight, than through using appetite suppressants or more drastically, surgical procedures - a healthy diet and an adequate amount of exercise are the slower, but ultimately more effective means of regulating weight and metabolism. But strangely enough, I don’t hear church representatives crying foul over the “artificial” means people use to lose weight (even though so many of them don’t even work, certainly in the long term). What gives? These things are just as “unnatural” as artificial contraception, and they can also do harm to people. Where do natural law ethicists stand upon such matters?

Means of losing weight is puerile as an attempt to ridicule the reality of natural law. Since when has using normal aids to health and well-being become “unnatural”? Any medical procedure that is not immoral is normal when it aids improved health and well-being. The natural law means that if you want things to prosper, you have to use them in accord with their nature. If you want to grow good tomatoes, you have to treat tomato plants in accord with their nature. You have to give them sunshine and water and fertilizer and a good soil. It is something that man can discover by the basis of his own reason, if his understanding is not obscured by his culture – which happens to be in turmoil through relativism and selfism.

There is a comparable connection between the fact that contraception is against the natural law, as is any other wrong action: stealing is; framing someone is; oppressing people is. The institution of property has the law of nature as its corollary — a law of morality which forbids stealing. The general principle being that good is to be pursued and evil avoided.

The doctrine against contraception is based on the natural moral law.
The Natural Law is “a law that is in principle accessible to human reason and not dependent on (though entirely compatible with and, indeed, illumined by) divine revelation.” (The Clash of Orthodoxies, Professor Robert P George (Princeton),2001, p 169). So that’s where you have to start – with reason, and the effects of acting against reason and the natural moral law.

The ancient Egyptians and the pagan Cicero, before Christ, acknowledged the natural moral law: 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 result of course is plain for all to see through contraception (and abortion) – the demographic winter over Europe and fast approaching in the rest of the world.

 

[Abu]

LJH_80 #36
There is nothing specifically immoral about contraception.

This thread could well be now be described as artificial arguments for contraception.

The difference between contraception and Natural Birth Regulation (NBR) are summarised brilliantly by the late Fr Torraco.

**Answer by Fr. Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”

 

[Serious]

Birthrates are falling precipitously all over the world (Europe, Asia, Latin America, even some Islamic countries). The obvious exception is Africa. But Africa has another problem: the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Falling birthrates are not problem. AIDS is a problem… but the use of condoms would help there.

Demographic winter has arrived.

Empty rhetoric.

It will become increasingly difficult to sustain welfare/heathcare/social security systems,…

Get rid of them, or convert them into an opt-in system. They are the pinnacle of inefficiency anyhow.

economic activity and national security.

What nonsense. Our productivity is growing, so the economy is in healthy shape. The standard of living has never been higher.

Aging and dying societies are not pretty.

Empty rhetoric. People are not just getting older, they are staying healthy longer, so they can work longer. The idea of “retirement” is a new concoction.

And we have the sexual revolution to thank for this demographic debacle.

Total, complete nonsense.

 

[mwok]

Serious, do you live in the U.S.?

 

[Serious]

You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves.

It is absurd to speak of actions “in and of themselves”, and disregarding the environment they occur.

The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act.

Utilitarian is not the same as “the end justifies the means”. It takes both the end and the means in consideration.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything,

Nonsense. It does not condone sex with children or animals - the two usual “objections”. The word “consensual” is the buzzword. If an action is consensual, it is no one else’s business any longer.

as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning.

What is wrong with those?

The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith.

A teaching which considers totally harmless activities as “evil and harmful ones” cannot be founded on rational ground.

 

[Serious]

Serious, do you live in the U.S.?

Why does it matter? I live in the US and in Europe, according to my fancy.

 

[mwok]

Nonsense. It does not condone sex with children or animals - the two usual “objections”. The word “consensual” is the buzzword. If an action is consensual, it is no one else’s business any longer.

So if a married man and his mistress have “consensual” sex, it is not the man’s spouses business?

 

[mwok]

Why does it matter? I live in the US and in Europe, according to my fancy.

I was just wondering if you were paying attention to the economy in the US.

The standard of living may be higher, however, most people in the US do not meet that standard.

 

[Serious]

I was just wondering if you were paying attention to the economy in the US.

Actually, I do not pay close attention. The economy fluctuates, here, there and everywhere. That is the way the cookie crumbles. No reason for concern.

The standard of living may be higher, however, most people in the US do not meet that standard.

The poorest people in the US suffer not from malnutrition, but from being overweight. Those poorest people have only one cell-phone. Their standard of living is higher than the middle class in Bangla-Desh. And none of that has anything to do with contraception. Let’s stick to the topic.

 

[Serious]

So if a married man and his mistress have “consensual” sex, it is not the man’s spouses business?

Get real. The marriage is a contract. Having outside relationship would be violating that contract. If, however the wife would be willing participant in a “menage a trois” it would be no one else’s buisness. Or if the husband and wife would agree to have an open marriage.

 

[mwok]

Let’s stick to the topic.

I agree

 

[mwok]

Get real. The marriage is a contract. Having outside relationship would be violating that contract. If, however the wife would be willing participant in a “menage a trois” it would be no one else’s buisness. Or if the husband and wife would agree to have an open marriage.

You obviously haven’t heard of the conditions of the contract: To forsake all others

Or are you in the habit of keeping contracts as long as you can “consensually” break the terms?