Arguments Against Artificial Contraception

[Serious]

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

That is not necessarily true. Some people agree that their contract will read differently. And this still has nothing to do with contraception.

 

[mwok]

That is not necessarily true. Some people agree that their contract will read differently. And this still has nothing to do with contraception.

Contraception was born from infidelity. Married man wants to keep his mistress away from his wifes knowledge so he finds a way to prevent her from becoming pregnant while still being able to have “contact” with her.

And does your answer also hint that you would only readily enter into such a contract if it were easy for you to get out of or the limits weren’t too strict?

 

[Serious]

Contraception was born from infidelity.

You can’t be serious to offer such a simplistic idea. Since time immemorial people wanted to enjoy sex without the burden of conception. A simple form of condom existed way before the latex version. People also practised “coitus interruptus” and of course extra-vaginal sex. None of which had anything to do with infidelity. All of which had everything to do with the idea that sex is much more than conception, or being “open” to conception.

And does your answer also hint that you would only readily enter into such a contract if it were easy for you to get out of or the limits weren’t too strict?

You read too much into my answer.

 

[mwok]

You can’t be serious to offer such a simplistic idea. Since time immemorial people wanted to enjoy sex without the burden of conception. A simple form of condom existed way before the latex version. People also practised “coitus interruptus” and of course extra-vaginal sex. None of which had anything to do with infidelity. All of which had everything to do with the idea that sex is much more than conception, or being “open” to conception.

I agree that sex is more than conception, your explanation suggests that conception should be excluded. If these “immemorial people” were being so faithful, why is conception such a burden?

You read too much into my answer.

Or maybe you say more than you realize?

 

[Serious]

I agree that sex is more than conception, your explanation suggests that conception should be excluded. If these “immemorial people” were being so faithful, why is conception such a burden?

Conception is a tad more than delivering a baybee. There is this minor thing of giving that kid a decent upbringing. And again you misunderstand me (intentionally?): conception is not excluded (and no one suggest that), it is merely not practiced every time.

 

[Abu]

Serious #51
It is absurd to speak of actions “in and of themselves”,
If an action is consensual, it is no one else’s business any longer.

Thus says the oracle in assuming that there is no law-giver and no moral law, natural, nor commanded specifically by God – a denial of the fact of God who created us with free will to do good and avoid evil. “Serious” doesn’t consider God seriously, as He is “someone else” who has no business defining good and evil in His world.

#61: People also practised “coitus interruptus” and of course extra-vaginal sex. None of which had anything to do with infidelity. All of which had everything to do with the idea that sex is much more than conception, or being “open” to conception.

Precisely, which is why Onan was killed by God.

The “be fruitful and multiply” command from God is here twisted to “sex without conception” as the chimera of pleasure to be followed for its own sake, not as a part of the wholesome act intrinsic with the unitive and procreative ends of marriage only.
The absurdities of such a warped opinion are evidenced in the “anything goes” for sexual pleasure shambles such as adultery, fornication, multiple “partners”.

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. Bestiality is encouraged by some utilitarians.

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

Professor Peter Singer of Princeton: “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.”

Actually, “Demographic winter” denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as a “birth-dearth,” and what it portends – the demographic winter which has engulfed Europe due to the contraceptive mentality leading to the abortion mentality is now evident. [See: http://www.demographicwinter.com].

 

[mwok]

Conception is a tad more than delivering a baybee. There is this minor thing of giving that kid a decent upbringing. And again you misunderstand me (intentionally?): conception is not excluded (and no one suggest that), it is merely not practiced every time.

Again, if they were so faithful, why is the upbringing of a child which occured from the conception such a burden that they could not merely wait until the woman is naturally infertile(which you were kind enough to point out) to enjoy sex without the “burden” of conception?

 

[Sair]

Again, if they were so faithful, why is the upbringing of a child which occured from the conception such a burden that they could not merely wait until the woman is naturally infertile(which you were kind enough to point out) to enjoy sex without the “burden” of conception?

That would be because your benevolent god made sure that a woman’s body is most receptive to sex when she is most likely to get pregnant. So a man, theoretically and biologically, might really, really enjoy sex at any time, but a woman’s desire is subject to much greater fluctuation. Unless she is lucky enough to be partnered with a man whose imagination runs to more possibilities than penetrative sex, she has to exercise more self-control than her man.

Of course, this doesn’t even touch on the occurrence of homosexual sex between women, but I gather that’s frowned upon by the “sex=willingness-to-procreate” brigade anyway. And the fact of the matter is that, just like any major undertaking, whether entered into willingly or not, having children is a burden for a couple - as long as they take the practicalities seriously.

 

[mwok]

That would be because your benevolent god made sure that a woman’s body is most receptive to sex when she is most likely to get pregnant. So a man, theoretically and biologically, might really, really enjoy sex at any time, but a woman’s desire is subject to much greater fluctuation. Unless she is lucky enough to be partnered with a man whose imagination runs to more possibilities than penetrative sex, she has to exercise more self-control than her man.

Of course, this doesn’t even touch on the occurrence of homosexual sex between women, but I gather that’s frowned upon by the “sex=willingness-to-procreate” brigade anyway. And the fact of the matter is that, just like any major undertaking, whether entered into willingly or not, having children is a burden for a couple - as long as they take the practicalities seriously.

I agree that child rearing is a burden, which is why only those who are serious about the responsibilities should engage in the act that brings children into this world.

My point exactly, men were not faithful because they wanted sex-no kids and since their spouses were either fertile or uninterested they found another who was interested and used some object that would block conception so the man’s spouse would not find out so easily that she had been traded for someone who was willing or tricked into being used for that man’s pleasure.

 

[Serious]

Thus says the oracle in assuming that there is no law-giver and no moral law, natural, nor commanded specifically by God – a denial of the fact of God who created us with free will to do good and avoid evil. “Serious” doesn’t consider God seriously, as He is “someone else” who has no business defining good and evil in His world.

Excatly. Now if you can deliver a rational (not-faith-based) argument, then we could talk.

Precisely, which is why Onan was killed by God.

How “loving”.

The “be fruitful and multiply” command from God is here twisted to “sex without conception” as the chimera of pleasure to be followed for its own sake, not as a part of the wholesome act intrinsic with the unitive and procreative ends of marriage only.
The absurdities of such a warped opinion are evidenced in the “anything goes” for sexual pleasure shambles such as adultery, fornication, multiple “partners”.

Yes, of course. Nothing wrong there.

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.

You can train a dog to perform cunniligus on a woman, for sure. Personally I find it disgusting, but that is really just my opinion. The dog might not get pleasure out of it, but it does not get pain out out of it either. And usuallly it receives a reward.

That’s why God has implanted the natural moral law within human nature, so that we can use our reason from cause to effect.

But this is exactly what you deny! You have been talking about the “cause” without considering the effect. I would suggest to be consistent in your views, and not to argue against what you said 5 minutes ago. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

They fail to face the reality of the design and order which require a lawgiver.

There is no “design”.

The support of masturbation as healthy and natural, and of homomania, shows the anything goes attitude prevailing, which feels for example that “bestiality is wrong, since the animal cannot consent” – a purely personal feeling again.

The inability to consent is a fact, not a “personal feeling”.

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.”

And they are correct.

Actually, “Demographic winter” denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as a “birth-dearth,” and what it portends – the demographic winter which has engulfed Europe due to the contraceptive mentality leading to the abortion mentality is now evident. [See: http://www.demographicwinter.com]

.
Why is that a problem? In some smaller countries some people complain that their population is in decline and they are facing “extinction”. Who cares?

 

[levinas12]

Total, complete nonsense.

Surely, Serious can’t be serious that precipitously falling birth rates (below replacement levels) are not something to worry about.

Consider Japan. This country is highly technological but it also has a growing and dangerous imbalance between the young and old. I can tell you that, even if you’re not worried, the Japanese are.

Consider Europe. Greece is just the beginning.

Consider the US. There is justified concern about the decrease in the number of workers financing social security and medicare.

 

[levinas12]

Get rid of them, or convert them into an opt-in system.

Social programs are not that easy to modify or eliminate.
Serious; 9167945:

… the economy is in healthy shape …

Really?

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

Not sure grandpa and grandma would agree.

 

[Serious]

Surely, Serious can’t be serious that precipitously falling birth rates (below replacement levels) are not something to worry about.

I am not worried. If people choose to procreate less, there will be a change in the social structures across the globe. Why is that a problem? More is not always better.

Consider Japan. This country is highly technological but it also has a growing and dangerous imbalance between the young and old. I can tell you that, even if you’re not worried, the Japanese are.

What is dangerous about that? People live longer, is that bad? People are healthier, is that bad? The problem is not there.

Consider Europe. Greece is just the beginning.

The problem in Greece is the result of too much social spending and the lack of good working morale. Are you aware that in Greece people received extra bonuses just for getting to work in time?

Consider the US. There is justified concern about the decrease in the number of workers financing social security and medicare.

The solution is simple. People will have to work longer, and not get SS benefits at the age when they can still work. The word “entitlement” is what causes these problems. People are not “entitled” to Jack Schitt.

Social programs are not that easy to modify or eliminate.

No, it is not easy. But eventually they will have be.

Really?

Yes, really. There are always fluctuations.

Not sure grandpa and grandma would agree.

Maybe some would not. I am a grandpa, and I would support these changes, even though they would take some money out of my pocket. I do not want to live off the work of the next generation. Speaking of the US, the most affluent segment of the population is the retired ones. And yet, they are supported by the poorest segment of the population - the ones who just started to work. A veritable reverse Robin Hood setup.

Of course, this has nothing to do with contraception.

 

[levinas12]

… People are healthier …

If people are so healthy, why has the healthcare bill skyrocketed? Maybe the costs of “health” are prohibitive. But, of course, with any aging population, there are also a lot of sick people.

…The problem in Greece is the result of too much social spending …

But, I know you’ll agree, this is not restricted to Greece. The rest of Europe, the US and many other countries also have high levels of social spending. Greece, with its current social unrest, is just a harbinger of things to come.

… this has nothing to do with contraception.

Well, I have to disagree. The social spending is driven by the disintegration of family life brought on, at least in part, by contraception. Paradoxically, the Pill, etc, with the accompanying sexual revolution, resulted in an explosion of single parenting which, in turn, has led to statist social programs.

 

[Serious]

If people are so healthy, why has the healthcare bill skyrocketed? Maybe the costs of “health” are prohibitive. But, of course, with any aging population, there are also a lot of sick people.

Who says we need socialized health care? I will give you two actual examples of ridiculous health coverage in the US. One is: “obesity” is now considered a “disease”, covered under Medicare and Medicaid. The other is: people sometimes have toenail problems. Back in the “good old days” they went to the pedicurists and spent about 10 bucks to have them taken care of. Them some idiot in the goverment made those problems covered by Medicare and Medicaid. Lo and behold, people went to the doctors, since insurance did not cover the pedicurists. The doctors startet to charge more. Last time I checked the same service cost about 80 bucks, as opposed to 10.

But, I know you’ll agree, this is not restricted to Greece. The rest of Europe, the US and many other countries also have high levels of social spending. Greece, with its current social unrest, is just a harbinger of things to come.

Indeed.

Well, I have to disagree. The social spending is driven by the disintegration of family life brought on, at least in part, by contraception.

Not true. You speak of lack of contraception. Teenagers do not use contraception. If they did the problem would go away.

Social spending is a way of “buying” votes by the politicians. Pandering to a certain segment of the population is just one gimmick they play. In France they introduced bills so that single mothers were not “rewarded” for having unlimited number of kids, the help was stopped after the second child. The “message” went through and the number of “kids-for-money” dropped significantly. The solution is to stop subsidizing the children.

 

[levinas12]

Social spending is a way of “buying” votes by the politicians.

Yes and no.

Yes, politicians do pander for votes.

But, on the other hand, there are real problems to address, many of which resulted from the “sexual revolution” – high divorce rates, single mothers and out-of-wedlock children, school dropouts, delinquency and crime, a new and huge cohort of unattached single people, etc.

The lack of initial family formation and the disintegration of existing families are wreaking havoc in so many areas.

I agree that, to a certain extent, government social programs have aggravated this crisis. But the problems were there already. The atomization of society (what the early sociologists called “social dust”) began back with industrialization in the 19th century (and maybe even earlier).

Artificial contraception has not been a solution. In fact, it’s been an accelerant, like pouring gasoline on a fire.

Simply dismantling the welfare state won’t work. We must figure out a way to reinvigorate family life. Ah, but how do we do that?

 

[Abu]

Every now and then we get an atheist like “Serious” who no one takes seriously because all they want to do is project their selfism, and sexual perversions, including contraception, and these are the “in thing”. However, there are atheists who genuinely seek reality and some find it.

Even Friedrich Nietzsche (‘God is dead’) wrote: “Strictly speaking there is no such thing as science ‘without any presuppositions’… a philosophy, a ‘faith’, must always be there first, so that science can acquire a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist… It is still a metaphysical faith that underlines our faith in science.” (Genealogy of Morals III, 23-24).

Some may be unaware that Dr Benjamin Wiker and Dr Scott Hahn, co-authors of Answering The New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins Case Against God, Emmaus Road, 2008, dedicated their demolition to Antony Flew “for his academic integrity and intellectual fortitude in ‘following the evidence wherever it may lead…’ ”

Flew, an Oxford educated philosopher described by some as “legendary”, first announced his discovery of “a god” in 2004. Flew had been one of the 20th century’s leading proponents of the pure atheistic Darwinian doctrines that categorically reject any possibility of a creative divine being. His ideas paved the way for thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, the UK’s most virulent opponent of religious belief.

So the raving of a sexual perversion advocate on a Catholic website merely demonstrates the chaos theory prevalent is such selfism.

 

[Serious]

But, on the other hand, there are real problems to address, many of which resulted from the “sexual revolution” – high divorce rates, single mothers and out-of-wedlock children, school dropouts, delinquency and crime, a new and huge cohort of unattached single people, etc.

This is so funny… you attribute all this to the sexual revolution in the 1950’s. (Let me recommend a hilariously funny, yet very true book by Allan Sherman: “The Rape of the APE*” - where the abbreviation stands for the American Puritan Ethics) Even if these were exacerbated by the sexual revolution (which is already dubious) none were caused by it. If you would think that before the 1950’s there was “Ozzie and Harriet” type of idealistic society, where kids remained virgins until their wedding night, where there was no infidelity, etc… then you would be very naive. All that was around, but not as visible. They were swept under the rug and people pretended that they did not exist. People were master hypocrites back then - and it did not change a lot since then. The only real difference is that the problems came out into the open. Not that the current setup is ideal. Far from it. But to say that all the problems were caused by the PILL is simply absurd.

Simply dismantling the welfare state won’t work. We must figure out a way to reinvigorate family life. Ah, but how do we do that?

There is nothing wrong with the family life in general. It may not last “until death do us part”, but why is that a problem? A quick, friendly divorce, where the people stay friends and do not turn into enemies is vastly preferable to staying in a bitter, hateful wedlock.

 

[DJK100]

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).

evangelizationstation.com/Pamphlets/648%20A%20Natural%20argument%20for%20NFP.pdf

 

[levinas12]

This is so funny… you attribute all this to the sexual revolution in the 1950’s. (Let me recommend a hilariously funny, yet very true book by Allan Sherman: “The Rape of the APE*” - where the abbreviation stands for the American Puritan Ethics) Even if these were exacerbated by the sexual revolution (which is already dubious) none were caused by it. If you would think that before the 1950’s there was “Ozzie and Harriet” type of idealistic society, where kids remained virgins until their wedding night, where there was no infidelity, etc… then you would be very naive. All that was around, but not as visible. They were swept under the rug and people pretended that they did not exist. People were master hypocrites back then - and it did not change a lot since then. The only real difference is that the problems came out into the open. Not that the current setup is ideal. Far from it. But to say that all the problems were caused by the PILL is simply absurd.

There is nothing wrong with the family life in general. It may not last “until death do us part”, but why is that a problem? A quick, friendly divorce, where the people stay friends and do not turn into enemies is vastly preferable to staying in a bitter, hateful wedlock.

Fair enough.

See my posting #74 above where I refer to the Pill as more an accelerant, as pouring gasoline on a pre-existing fire (the origins of which date from the 19th century and earlier).

However, to say there’s nothing wrong with family life in general is a bit of a leap. There are plenty of statistics to the contrary.