Arguments against Contraception

[JapaneseKappa]

So what? To the closed minded, there can be no convincing, no matter how strong the argument.

Obviously that is true. I’ve seen it myself. But it’s pretty easy to tell when that is happening; I like to use the term “mental gymnastics” to describe the process of trying to squirm out of reasonably convincing arguments.

Typically, mental gymnastics does not consist of:

• Offering alternative hypothesis.
• Offering new evidence.
• Asking for clarification of terms.

Mental gymnastics frequently does consist of:

• Refusal to specifically address the counter-arguments or evidence.
• Trying to shift the burden of proof.
• Introduction of red-herring objections that distract from the core issue being discussed.

 

[carefullytread]

Obviously that is true. I’ve seen it myself. But it’s pretty easy to tell when that is happening; I like to use the term “mental gymnastics” to describe the process of trying to squirm out of reasonably convincing arguments.

Typically, mental gymnastics does not consist of:

• Offering alternative hypothesis.
• Offering new evidence.
• Asking for clarification of terms.

Mental gymnastics frequently does consist of:

• Refusal to specifically address the counter-arguments or evidence.
• Trying to shift the burden of proof.
• Introduction of red-herring objections that distract from the core issue being discussed.

There’s also what I might say are the consequences of consequentialism. For a consequentialist, doing science, e.g. sociology in this case, has the potential to change their mind if they are being honest. If you’re trying to understand the world from the perspective of finding the best outcomes and you see that some position leads to inferior outcomes, you might change your mind.

Most people don’t argue honestly, but some do and they might listen to the evidence. If you’re not a consequentialist, in a sense it really doesn’t matter what the sociology says. And that’s true for Catholicism. It isn’t consequentialist. If you have some studies that say couples that use contraception are happier than ones who do, it can doesn’t have any weight for a Catholic. They might argue that this study could never in principle be true, but at the end of the day, the sociology is irrelevant. God’s truths are not contingent on the world.

That’s not a problem for a Catholic, but you can see how for a consequentialist interlocutor, they are tempted to doubt the sincerity of someone arguing the other side from a position of doctrine rather than one of consequences.

PLEASE NOTE that I’m not saying the Catholics are being insincere, I’m just pointing out to Catholics why to a consequentialist, the Catholic position looks a lot like mental gymnastics. You can point to studies, but you really aren’t basing your conclusions on the studies. AND ALSO PLEASE NOTE that I’m not saying most non-Catholics are thoughtful enough to base their beliefs on studies either. For most people, it’s prejudices all the way down.

 

[Wesrock]

I would dispute that there is /a/ natural function of the sexual act - it seems to do many things for people. I also dispute any appeal to natural law - for much the same reason. I would also dispute that reducing the sexual act to pleasure necessarily is selfish - it certainly can be, but not in every circumstance. I would also dispute that sterilized sex objectifies women - women can enjoy, seek, and instigate sterilized sex for their own reasons. (Of course in this situation, I suppose it could be argued that the man is objectified. Would mutual objectification be a problem?)

I’m not bringing these up to nay-say. But to offer potential rebuttals to what a non-believer might say to stimulate other ideas. I can’t imagine many non-believers would buy into a teleos of the human body. Selfishness and objectification seems more plausible but I’m not sure it can’t be argued around in a coherent and consistent way.

I don’t think any Darwinian explanation can deny that procreation is the final end of sex, its ultimate purpose? Why does it feel good? Why does it cause couples to generally feel attachnent and protective of each other? Why do the penis and vagina fit together the way they do? Evolutionary fitness, of course, and to encourage the creation and raising of offspring. These things developed the way they did because people who didn’t enjoy sex, or develop bonds, etc… don’t have as many kids and there aren’t as many around.

 

[carefullytread]

I don’t think any Darwinian explanation can deny that procreation is the final end of sex, its ultimate purpose? Why does it feel good? Why does it cause couples to generally feel attachnent and protective of each other? Why do the penis and vagina fit together the way they do? Evolutionary fitness, of course, and to encourage the creation and raising of offspring. These things developed the way they did because people who didn’t enjoy sex, or develop bonds, etc… don’t have as many kids and there aren’t as many around.

Yeah, a Darwinian isn’t going to deny that, but a Darwinian also doesn’t see morality in evolution. Evolution is a blind and purposeless god. And you don’t even need Darwin to think that observing what is doesn’t tell you what you ought to do. That’s an old observation going back to Hume, sometimes known as Hume’s guillotine or Hume’s law.

Catholics have responses to that, usually in the form of natural law, but a secularist probably doesn’t find those arguments convincing. In other words, yeah, so the sex drive is nature’s way of making sure people procreate, but so what? Answering the “so what” is where it gets interesting

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I don’t think any Darwinian explanation can deny that procreation is the final end of sex, its ultimate purpose? Why does it feel good? Why does it cause couples to generally feel attachnent and protective of each other? Why do the penis and vagina fit together the way they do? Evolutionary fitness, of course, and to encourage the creation and raising of offspring. These things developed the way they did because people who didn’t enjoy sex, or develop bonds, etc… don’t have as many kids and there aren’t as many around.

Evolution is not a mythical being that has its own intent or purpose. It is certainly true that sex has the biological function of producing offspring, but it doesn’t follow that it was designed for that purpose by evolution or nature. This is a tough thought to think, and indeed a lot of work on evolution (in both the scientific and philosophical camps) has been clouded by invoking Teleology where it didn’t need to be.

 

[DrTaffy]

It is certainly true that sex has the biological function of producing offspring, but it doesn’t follow that it was designed for that purpose by evolution or nature.

You can go further. Biologically, sex is actually an impediment to reproduction. Asexual reproduction is much simpler.

Sex, if you want to ascribe a teleological ‘purpose’, would be about evolution, not reproduction per se.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

I would say if your goal is too convince someone contraception is bad natural law theory will now work. Personally I don’t find natural law to be at all convincing because I don’t really care about what our bodies were intended to do because we know have conscious thought and wants so we aren’t bound by what is natural, I mean it isn’t natural for people to use toilets, our bodies remove excrement from our bodies better when in a squatting position but that doesn’t mean I’m going to stop using bathrooms. While personally I can’t think of any way to convince someone that contraception is bad from a secular point of view (I personally think contraception is very helpful to society) but I wish you guys the best of luck

 

[billsannie]

Early in my marriage,as a Catholic joined to a Baptist, I did a fair amount of research on arguments for and against contraception. The only non-religious opinions I could find in favor of NFP were held by a few women who liked not having the chemicals in their bodies and felt it gave them more personal control. The consequential arguments, for the most part, were very unfavorable. Unless you’re talking to a bodily purist, I don’t think it’s possible to make a convincing non-religious argument against contraception. Just my two cents.

 

[Abu]

One of the many bad effects of contraception is clearly identified. “Demographic winter” denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as a “birth-dearth,” and what it portends.

Demographer Philip Longman (author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity) observes: “The ongoing global decline in human birthrates is the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st century.” Worldwide, birthrates have been halved in the past 50 years. There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world’s population, with below-replacement fertility.

Sometime in this century, the world’s population will begin to decline. At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach population free-fall in our lifetimes. For some countries, population decline is already a reality. Russia is losing three-quarters-of-a-million people a year. Its population (currently 145 million) is expected to fall by one-third by 2050.
demographicwinter.com

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

One of the many bad effects of contraception is clearly identified. “Demographic winter” denotes the worldwide decline in birthrates, also referred to as a “birth-dearth,” and what it portends.

Demographer Philip Longman (author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity) observes: “The ongoing global decline in human birthrates is the single most powerful force affecting the fate of nations and the future of society in the 21st century.” Worldwide, birthrates have been halved in the past 50 years. There are now 59 nations, with 44% of the world’s population, with below-replacement fertility.

Sometime in this century, the world’s population will begin to decline. At a certain point, the decline will become rapid. We may even reach population free-fall in our lifetimes. For some countries, population decline is already a reality. Russia is losing three-quarters-of-a-million people a year. Its population (currently 145 million) is expected to fall by one-third by 2050.
demographicwinter.com

But this is under the assumption that decline in population is a bad thing, population have grown exponentially in recent years and a lessening of population would be a good thing

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

1. Man-boobs. When women digest BCP and pee into the toilets the estrogen cannot be filtered out of the water supply without triple-reverse Osmosis. The surge of estrogen is creating abdomalities in fish near colleges and giving men the famous, man-boobs. According to Forbs, it would cost each user of BCP to pay $1,500 per year to update the water system in England. forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/06/03/women-on-contraceptive-pill-should-pay-1500-a-year-more-tax/#510d6b3d5bfd
2. Smell. Women who take BCP will seek the wrong partner because her sense of smell is skewed. This will result in her being repulsed at the man’s smell after a significant time in marriage. psychologytoday.com/articles/200910/the-smell-love
3. In the 2005 world health organization named the birth control pill as a group 1 carcinogen along side with radium, asbestos, & cigarette. 30% increase of breast cancer due to BCP.
4. BCP’s are not 99% stopping pregnancy. The 99% is only under a perfect guidelines outlined by manufacturer. Medicine, vitamins, consistance use, and many more factors make the a edge user 70-80% hedged against pregnancy. pfli.org/faq_oc.html
5. BCP’s make users gain weight, get more moody, and increases zits.
6. BCP cannot protect a heart!