Arguments Against Artificial Contraception

[Serious]

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.

I keep remembering that every generation has been decrying the deterioration of “morals”. Cicero’s immortal saying: “O tempora! O mores!” has been echoed throughout the times. Lifestyles do change, that is undeniable, whether for better or worse, that is a question of personal opinion. The “conservatives” (mostly, but not exclusively the older generation) were always upset by the changes. In their eyes everything is worse than it “used to be”. Well, tough luck.

As for statistics, I recall the introduction in college by the professor, who said: “Statistics is like a bikini, it shows a lot, but hides the important parts”. Or Mark Twain, who said: “There are lies, there are damn lies, and there is statistics”.

The only thing the Pill did, was giving the women a chance not to be forced into preganacy every 9 months. It allowed women to become equal on the sexual playing field. In my eyes this is a tremendous improvement compared to the concept which said: “the place of women is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen”. Of course, I understand that in your eyes this is a horrible change. But I still reject your previous assertion that “school droput rates, delinquency, crime, etc…” are all to be blamed on that “pill”. This kind of exaggeration is unwarranted.

 

[sw85]

I keep remembering that every generation has been decrying the deterioration of “morals”. Cicero’s immortal saying: “O tempora! O mores!” has been echoed throughout the times. Lifestyles do change, that is undeniable, whether for better or worse, that is a question of personal opinion. The “conservatives” (mostly, but not exclusively the older generation) were always upset by the changes. In their eyes everything is worse than it “used to be”. Well, tough luck.

Every generation? Is there proof for this assertion? Certainly many generations have, and we tend to remember those ones – but for a good reason: they’re generally right. Cicero certainly was. Late-republican Rome was a cesspool of degeneracy and that’s why it collapsed, politically and culturally. And with a few periods of respite (under Augustus and parts of the reign of the Five Good Emperors), it only got worse.

As for statistics, I recall the introduction in college by the professor, who said: “Statistics is like a bikini, it shows a lot, but hides the important parts”. Or Mark Twain, who said: “There are lies, there are damn lies, and there is statistics”.

Which means… what? That statistics in general is untrustworthy? But statistics is the manner in which we extrapolate particular findings into general laws. If we can’t trust statistics the whole scientific enterprise itself fails.

Perhaps you mean most statisticians are lazy, ignorant, incompetent, and/or dishonest. Which is certainly true. But then this requires you to point out how any particular statistic is unreliable or being misinterpreted.

 

[levinas12]

But I still reject your previous assertion that “school droput rates, delinquency, crime, etc…” are all to be blamed on that “pill”. This kind of exaggeration is unwarranted.

There are many factors contributing to social dysfunction.

But the connection between the Pill and the sexual revolution (which really got going in the 1960s) is indisputable.

Therefore, the question to ask is what effect that revolution had on society.

You seem to believe it was all positive.

Would you admit there may have been some negatives?

 

[Serious]

But the connection between the Pill and the sexual revolution (which really got going in the 1960s) is indisputable.

That is certainly true.

Therefore, the question to ask is what effect that revolution had on society.

You seem to believe it was all positive.

Would you admit there may have been some negatives?

There are positive and negative ones - as always (TANSTAAFL). The fun thing is separate which effects are which. But to agree on that we would need a common platform to start with. And that is unfortunately impossible.

It is impossible to agree on artifical contraception, no matter what form it takes, pills, condoms, coitus interruptus, extra-vaginal activities, oral sex… what have you. The basic problem is that believers consider any sexual activity which is not “open” to procreation - “sinful”, therefore impermissible. For non-christians this viewpoint is simply absurd. From a secular and rational point of view it makes no sense to have as many children as biologically possible, and it makes even less sense to abstain when one does not wish to procreate. Of course, if that is how you wish to conduct your life, it is your business. I am all out for your personal freedom. But do not expect to conduct a secular, rational argument about it, because you will fail. On religious ground your argument is properly established, of that there is no doubt. But that ground is not acceptable for others.

 

[levinas12]

That is certainly true.

There are positive and negative ones - as always (TANSTAAFL). The fun thing is separate which effects are which. But to agree on that we would need a common platform to start with. And that is unfortunately impossible.

Well, we might have a common platform after all - sociology.

The sexual revolution was defined by a steep increase in non-marital sexual intercourse facilitated by the ready availability of contraceptives and abortion services.

At the same time, there was a dramatic rise in the divorce rate and a concomitant decrease in married two parent households as well as a huge increase in the number of cohabiting couples, single mothers and single unattached people.

Even the entertainment industry got in on the action by a constant barrage of erotic messages about the bliss of sexual promiscuity.

Do you really think that all this did not have a deleterious effect on the ability of a society to maintain stable and healthy family life?

 

[levinas12]

I forgot to mention the skyrocketing rates of STDs.

This in spite of the fact that society has been saturated with contraceptives including condoms.

Maybe Dionysus resents controls.

 

[Serious]

Well, we might have a common platform after all - sociology.

Ok, I don’t think highly of sociology (it is not much of a science) but we can give it a try.

The sexual revolution was defined by a steep increase in non-marital sexual intercourse facilitated by the ready availability of contraceptives and abortion services.

Apart from the fact that successful use of contraception decreases the need for abortion, I see no reason to argue with this. Though the “steep” increase us questionable. Males frequented houses of “ill-repute” ever since those establishments were in operation. I don’t know if there is a reliable source of information to support that “steep rise”. Women were excluded, for sure, and the arrival of the Pill was a “Godsend” to them.

At the same time, there was a dramatic rise in the divorce rate and a concomitant decrease in married two parent households as well as a huge increase in the number of cohabiting couples, single mothers and single unattached people.

This sentence mentioned many unrelated groups of people. The only problem I see is that it would be better for the children to have both parents around - BUT only if those parents love each other. Civilized divorce and a good, friendly relationship beteween the parents lessens the trauma for the children, even though the trauma is there. A two-parent family with hostility between the parents is much worse that clean break from an unsuccessful relationship. Cohabitation is not a problem. Why would it? Contrary to the adage, marriages are NOT made in heaven, and most “first attempts” simply do not work out. It is healthy to test the waters first, before jumping in. (Not going into anatomical details, but there are “size differences” and that can become a problem. Btw, that reminds me of a good bumper sticker I had a long time ago: “The national debt was created by men, who think size does not matter”.) You see, our different points of view make the agreement next to impossible.

Even the entertainment industry got in on the action by a constant barrage of erotic messages about the bliss of sexual promiscuity.

Why is that a problem? People like to have sex, and the advertizers exploit that fact.

Do you really think that all this did not have a deleterious effect on the ability of a society to maintain stable and healthy family life?

If your definition of “healthy family life” means a “till death do us part even if the marriage is already living hell”, then assuredly it does. Or, if you consider “non-marital sex” as problematic.

I forgot to mention the skyrocketing rates of STDs.

Don’t forget those hight collars worn in the “good old times” to hide the marks of syphillis, which was prevalent back then.

This in spite of the fact that society has been saturated with contraceptives including condoms.

Too bad that people don’t use them.

 

[levinas12]

I don’t know if there is a reliable source of information to support that “steep rise”.

In the last 50 years, there have been plenty of authoritative surveys, reports, etc which document the “steep rise” in non-marital intercourse (for both males and females).

The only problem I see is that it would be better for the children to have both parents around - BUT only if those parents love each other. Civilized divorce and a good, friendly relationship beteween the parents lessens the trauma for the children, even though the trauma is there. A two-parent family with hostility between the parents is much worse that clean break from an unsuccessful relationship.

Well, is there any proof that, before the sexual revolution, the two-parent family was infested with murderous hostility? Maybe the sexual revolution itself introduced a new more virulent form of hostility into marriages.

Cohabitation is not a problem. Why would it? Contrary to the adage, marriages are NOT made in heaven, and most “first attempts” simply do not work out. It is healthy to test the waters first, before jumping in.

The irony is that couples who cohabitate before marriage have a higher rate of divorce than couples who do not (especially if these couples begin to have children early on in the marriage).

 

[Serious]

In the last 50 years, there have been plenty of authoritative surveys, reports, etc which document the “steep rise” in non-marital intercourse (for both males and females).

Supposedly. What about the males who frequented the whorehouses? Were surveys back then to find the frequency of these activities? But the real question is why is that a problem for otherwise single partners?

Well, is there any proof that, before the sexual revolution, the two-parent family was infested with murderous hostility?

I did not say “infested”. Before divorce was legal the “hostility” was obviously more prevalent.

The irony is that couples who cohabitate before marriage have a much higher rate of divorce than couples who do not.

Again, why is that a problem? As long as there are no children, this firmly belongs to the “who cares?” category.

Let’s try to wrap it up.

In my view 1) as long as there are no children, and 2) there is no breach of (marriage) contract (infidelity) whatever those people do is fine and dandy as long as it is consensual. 3) if people do not wish to procreate at a certain time, that is also their business. There is nothing wrong with contraception.

You obviously disagree with it. So far I did not see any good secular justification to abandon my viwe.

 

[levinas12]

Why is that a problem? People like to have sex, and the advertizers exploit that fact.

But what if it encourages just an interminable series of short-term sexual relationships? People may become incapable of committed relationships.

Don’t forget those hight collars worn in the “good old times” to hide the marks of syphillis, which was prevalent back then.

Too bad that people don’t use them.

So, seriously, Serious, how would you address the escalating STD rates? Condom advocacy programs seemed to have failed.

 

[levinas12]

Before divorce was legal the “hostility” was obviously more prevalent.

Really?

Again, why is that a problem? As long as there are no children, this firmly belongs to the “who cares?” category.

But the sad truth is that, as recent studies have shown, there are millions of children who suffer from the negative effects of divorce.

OK, let’s wrap it up.

 

[Serious]

But what if it encourages just an interminable series of short-term sexual relationships? People may become incapable of committed relationships.

Could be, but I am not as pessimistic as you are. But even if you are correct, it is not a big deal.

So, seriously, Serious, how would you address the escalating STD rates? Condom advocacy programs seemed to have failed.

Why do you think they failed? They could be more efficient, and if the church would support them, it would make a difference.

Really?

Of course. If there is no way out of a bad relationship, then it will become worse and worse.

But the sad truth is that, as recent studies have shown, there are millions of children who suffer from the negative effects of divorce.

Yes there are, which is very sad. Now, can you say (with clear conscience) that if those divorces did not happen the situation would be better?

OK, let’s wrap it up.

Thanks for the conversation.

 

[levinas12]

Thanks for the conversation.

Serious, you are one smart guy.

 

[tarboy]

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.

I think your cause and effect is mixed up.
Most people who practice NFP have done so for spiritual reasons, so lack of deep spiritual beliefs coorelates, or is causal of high divorce rates and contraceptive use.

I don’t think there is a strong argument against contraception that doesn’t hinge on deeply held spiritual convictions.