Arguments Against Artificial Contraception

  • Thread starter Thread starter levinas12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

levinas12

Guest
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).
 
She speaks for herself quite clearly. If you don’t want to read it then you can get it on CD or mp3.
 
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.”
 
neophyte said:
She speaks for herself quite clearly. If you don’t want to read it then you can get it on CD or mp3.
Click to expand...
When you said “worth listening to” I think the OP thought it was a video/audio file, which not everyone can access on their internet connection (I thought that’s what you meant). Now that I know that it’s text, I have read it.
 
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.
 
There’s a good article on it here: businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2

Buyt, for those who may not be Catholic, but believe in God anyway (i.e., regardless of religion), I would put it like this:

Today, or tonight, a little baby is going to be born at a hospital near you. The life of that little baby began about nine months ago. One day, that hospital won’t be there. Neither will the city, the state, or the country, and maybe not even the earth. But that little person who was born will still exist…forever.

And what the contracepting couple are telling God is this: “We know, that by this act, we may participate with You in the creation of a person who will live forever. And we know that this may be Your will. But WE won’t let YOU do it!” An in-your-face rebellion against God! Wow! What a quick way to end up in hell!

Historically, artificial birth control has been around for thousands of years, but it was condemned until recently as being immoral. What “modern man” has done in accepting contraception as “okay” has resulted in an increase in divorces, destruction of families, turning women into objects to be used, since sex is no longer about pro-creation, but about “MY pleasure,” and many other ills of our society. It has undermined the moral fabric of society and families, which are the building blocks of society. It has led to “legalized” abortions, and in some places (Holland, for example) “legalized” euthanasia, even without the patient’s permission. It’s a disaster. It is based on lies and leads to murder. Speaking of Satan, Jesus said that he was a liar and a murderer from the beginning. Those are his main goals.
 
Contraception is not wrong because it results in people having more immoral sex, although it does. It is wrong because it short-circuits the functioning of the human body for an ulterior motive, specifically, sexual pleasure.

Artificial contraception can be compared to the use of vomiting to prevent weight gain from overeating. In the Roman banquets of classical times, it was perfectly acceptable to do this. Of course, it inflicted damage on the body. Today, someone undergoing bulimia is considered to have a disorder.

Sex is for procreation, just as eating is for nutrition. Taste pleasure and sexual pleasure are God-given “side effects” to these processes. They are good. But it is wrong to short out the body’s functioning to overindulge in either.

One day, contraceptive sex will be viewed as the Roman vomitoria are now.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
Contraception is not wrong because it results in people having more immoral sex, although it does. It is wrong because it short-circuits the functioning of the human body for an ulterior motive, specifically, sexual pleasure.

Artificial contraception can be compared to the use of vomiting to prevent weight gain from overeating. In the Roman banquets of classical times, it was perfectly acceptable to do this. Of course, it inflicted damage on the body. Today, someone undergoing bulimia is considered to have a disorder.

Sex is for procreation, just as eating is for nutrition. Taste pleasure and sexual pleasure are God-given “side effects” to these processes. They are good. But it is wrong to short out the body’s functioning to overindulge in either.

One day, contraceptive sex will be viewed as the Roman vomitoria are now.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
Yes, Contraceptives are exactly as immoral as chewing gum!
 
davidv said:
Really? Based on what exactly?
Click to expand...
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.
 
LJH_80 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is that gum, despite having a taste, has no food value. So no interference with body functioning occurs.
 
GEddie said:
The problem with that is that gum, despite having a taste, has no food value.
Click to expand...
That is precisely the problem. Indulging in enjoyment of the taste, and depriving the body of nutrition. Moreover its sugar content actually ruins your teeth. Ack! What a horrible sin. At least be consistent in what you preach.
 
LJH_80 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Granted that I think the strongest reasons against contraception are religious and not secular…
  1. Granted your seat-belt suggestion, If you knew there was an activity that contributed to widely accepted negative consequences, wouldn’t you agree that at the very least that there would be a strong presumption against that activity?
If we have good evidence that an increase in contraception increases sexual promiscuity (which seems reasonable), with the accompanying ills, divorce, depression, increased stds etc, wouldn’t we agree that at the very least, this is a reason to think that there is a strong presumption against it?
  1. Granted your gum suggestion (which I’m not sure quite works) Wouldn’t we think something was odd about someone who chewed a whole pizza and spit it out? Is is reasonable to think that this is at least somewhat comparable to someone who has sex but deliberately renders the act infertile.
  2. Contraception risks having parents stand in the wrong relation to their children.
    alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2008/11/argument-against-contraception.html
 
opus101 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Of those who practice any form of birth control, what is the proportion of those who only use NFP? Are they a representative sample of the population of married couples? Do these statistics take into account those who are not actually married, but living in long-term relationships?

The fact of the matter is that NFP takes a great deal of awareness, patience and understanding on the part of the couple involved - this is something you probably wouldn’t find in a majority of married couples. Especially not those who believe a husband has a ‘right’ to his wife’s body.

As for increased promiscuity, that is also an argument against abstinence-only sex education - I would not imagine the recipients of same would be told anything at all about contraception of any kind.

I would also question the coincidence of contraception use and high divorce rates. Do any of the relevant studies look at other factors that may be involved, such as personal compatibility, life goals, income, impact of having children, actual level of commitment at time of marriage - that sort of thing? Sure, divorce rates may have increased in the time since reliable contraception has become readily available, but in that time it has also become much easier, socially and legally speaking, to obtain a divorce when a marriage is just not working out. I would suggest also that it’s much better for children to have their parents divorce than to have to live with the constant reminder of their mutual dislike and intolerance.

As for arguments against artificial contraception, the only one that’s likely to have an impact upon the use of the pill is that it has a well-documented tendency to reduce female libido, and play havoc with a woman’s metabolism and mood regulation - these are the reasons I stopped using it. The “unnatural” argument will never wash, because it’s also an argument against any artificial contrivance humans have ever come up with.
 
danserr said:
  1. Granted your seat-belt suggestion, If you knew there was an activity that contributed to widely accepted negative consequences, wouldn’t you agree that at the very least that there would be a strong presumption against that activity?
\
Click to expand...
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?
 
danserr said:
Granted that I think the strongest reasons against contraception are religious and not secular…
  1. Granted your seat-belt suggestion, If you knew there was an activity that contributed to widely accepted negative consequences, wouldn’t you agree that at the very least that there would be a strong presumption against that activity?
If we have good evidence that an increase in contraception increases sexual promiscuity (which seems reasonable), with the accompanying ills, divorce, depression, increased stds etc, wouldn’t we agree that at the very least, this is a reason to think that there is a strong presumption against it?
Click to expand...
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!

A secular stance might be that we could focus on educating people how to use freedom responsibly instead of curtailing their freedom.
  1. Granted your gum suggestion (which I’m not sure quite works) Wouldn’t we think something was odd about someone who chewed a whole pizza and spit it out? Is is reasonable to think that this is at least somewhat comparable to someone who has sex but deliberately renders the act infertile.
Click to expand...
Odd, sure, but odd only means uncommon. Lots of things are odd. Being a left-handed albino unicyclist is odd, as is being able to read Sanskrit, knowing the starting line up for the 1938 Yankees, or eating garlic-and-banana-sandwiches. That doesn’t mean that those things are immoral, just odd.
But let’s broaden your definition only slightly. Do I think it’s odd for people to deliberately remove nutrition from the food they eat while still experiencing taste? By the fact that I put Splenda in my coffee, I will have to say “no.” Baco’s, veggieburgers, decaffinated coffee, and margarine also fall into this category.

So maybe the argument should be: “Contraception: As evil as Sweet-n-Low”
  1. Contraception risks having parents stand in the wrong relation to their children.
    alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2008/11/argument-against-contraception.html
Click to expand...
That, at least, is an an argument that is not rendered irrelevant by chewing gum, and doesn’t boil down to a spike on the steering wheel. Thank you. 🙂
This, however, I do have some experience with. My stepdaughter was an unplanned pregnancy for my wife. She knows that she was a “surprise baby,” and that her mommy didn’t want a baby at the time because she thought she wouldn’t be able to take good care of it, but when she got one, she decided that she was going to be the best mother she could be to this baby. And, to be honest, I have never met a better mother than my wife.
Therefore, this is only a significant issue if the parents persist in wishing the baby hadn’t happened after it has happened.
My other concern about this argument is differentiating it from NFP used to avoid pregnancy. If parents are trying to avoid/delay having another child using NFP, doesn’t that create the same mindset as contraception would: an active, premeditated desire not to conceive?
 
levinas12 said:
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).
Click to expand...
There are multiple different ways to look at this. The most straightforward way to me is actually look at it from a Catholic point of view and ask why Catholics 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.*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top