Artificial Contraception: Why it is very Charitable & Realistic

[AgnosTheist]

I told you** “I no longer **speak my native tongue”

oh, you didnt understand what I said? sorry, i’m here in canada and i’m used to seeing a lot of filipinos who cant speak but can understand tagalog.

Condoms are not 100% effective. Condoms break and if they break they will increase the chances of STD, and pregnancy. It is better not to have sex outside marriage.

first lets get fornication out of the way. lets limit our discussion within the confines of marriage. the condom is not absolute but its still about 95% effective. its a good way of delaying the arrival of new souls until things get better. i think thats very charitable, responsible and realistic.

David didn’t practiced it. He committed the sin of adultery. Adultery is sex between two married persons who are having intercourse with someone who is not their spouse.

just saying that its hard to control sex even for super prophets like david.

Young couples who can’t afford it should use NFP without contraception. Marriage is more than just sexual intercourse. If this is how you view marriage, you need to get rid of that mentality.

i agree. but for me its good to have another option in case the couple could not control their urges. thats what we did. NFP as much as possible, and condoms for emergency heating only. oh yeah…the withrawal method. rcc is against this also, right?

 

[Pete_1]

If you are interested their is an alternative view of population growth. I am not too knowlegable on this topic but many people mainly Esther Boserup, argue that population growth creates an environment where people invent new technologies out of necessity, and that population growth is not a bad thing as it leads to an equal increase in productivity (see Indias green revolution). It could be argued that poverty is not caused by overpopulation but the unfair distribution of weath between rich and poor that prevents poorer countires investing in new technologies.

So some people argue that having more children is a good thing, (although others such as neo-malthusians do not)

 

[Mannyfit75]

oh, you didnt understand what I said? sorry, i’m here in canada and i’m used to seeing a lot of filipinos who cant speak but can understand tagalog.

Let us say when I was young about 8 I did not like my heritage. Now that I am 32, I regret my mistake.

first lets get fornication out of the way. lets limit our discussion within the confines of marriage. the condom is not absolute but its still about 95% effective. its a good way of delaying the arrival of new souls until things get better. i think thats very charitable, responsible and realistic.

It is not effective. I don’t even advocate this. Couples who cannot afford children financially, the Church recognized of using Natural Family Planning. NFP is allow Catholic couple when the proper time it is to have sex base on the fertility period when a woman is not as fertile.

just saying that its hard to control sex even for super prophets like david.

That is why one ought to pray for God’s help to overcome it. For with man it is impossible. With God’s help, all things are possible. The more one prays more, the less likely he will sin.

i agree. but for me its good to have another option in case the couple could not control their urges. thats what we did. NFP as much as possible, and condoms for emergency heating only. oh yeah…the withrawal method. rcc is against this also, right?

If the couple is Catholic, they can’t have other options but NFP. Catholics are called to what we call self-mastery. Do you what self mastery is?

CCC states,

2342 Self-mastery is a long and exacting work. One can never consider it acquired once and for all. It presupposes renewed effort at all stages of life.129 The effort required can be more intense in certain periods, such as when the personality is being formed during childhood and adolescence.

Um, explain the withdrawal method?

 

[Meunke]

“Um, explain the withdrawal method?”

I believe he is refering to the man withdrawing from the woman right before the moment of climax.

Unless I’m wrong, this is also against Church teaching. In fact, I recall someplace in the Bible someone was struck dead by God for this… Something about “spilling his seed on the ground”?

 

[Jestocost]

1. Artificial Contraception is charitable in a crowded world because because a reduced family size help conserve resources, which is beneficial to everybody.
2. Artificial Contraception is a charitable option for couples in poverty for the obvious reason that couple would be able to care well for the limited number of children that they can afford to raise.
3. Artificial Contraception is realistic because the world is drowning in human population & humans cant stop having sex.

I’m having some trouble understanding the Church’s position on contraception, but these are *really *terrible reasons. If artificial contraception is immoral, these do not make it moral, any more than they make forced sterilization, or forced abortion, or execution of the elderly moral.

You should also look up “global aging” and possibly Paul Erlich’s track record on predictions. Overpopulation is pretty thoroughly discredited these days. Underpopulation is a far greater and immediate problem.

 

[Pete_1]

“Um, explain the withdrawal method?”

I believe he is refering to the man withdrawing from the woman right before the moment of climax.

Unless I’m wrong, this is also against Church teaching. In fact, I recall someplace in the Bible someone was struck dead by God for this… Something about “spilling his seed on the ground”?

I think that’s the sin of Onan in Genesis:

Genesis 38:9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name.
Genesis 38:10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing:

 

[manualman]

All three of the OP’s original points argue that the ends justify the means.

That’s extremely weak reasoning on any issue, regardless of what you think of the ends in question.

 

[mapleoak]

1. Artificial Contraception is charitable in a crowded world because because a reduced family size help conserve resources, which is beneficial to everybody.
2. Artificial Contraception is a charitable option for couples in poverty for the obvious reason that couple would be able to care well for the limited number of children that they can afford to raise.
3. Artificial Contraception is realistic because the world is drowning in human population & humans cant stop having sex.

Let’s try that with murder:

1. MURDER is charitable in a crowded world because because a reduced family size help conserve resources, which is beneficial to everybody.
2. MURDER is a charitable option for couples in poverty for the obvious reason that couple would be able to care well for the limited number of children that they can afford to raise.
3. MURDER is realistic because the world is drowning in human population & humans cant stop having sex. :whacky:

 

[So_Catholic]

1. Artificial Contraception is charitable in a crowded world because because a reduced family size help conserve resources, which is beneficial to everybody.
2. Artificial Contraception is a charitable option for couples in poverty for the obvious reason that couple would be able to care well for the limited number of children that they can afford to raise.
3. Artificial Contraception is realistic because the world is drowning in human population & humans cant stop having sex.

1. Conserving rescources has nothing to do with family size, a family of 12 can be just as eco freindly as a family of 5 if they want to do such things. (if they dont then this arguement is moot anyway)
2. If you cant afford kids keep your pants on for heaven’s sake! (preventing a miracle of God is charitable???)
3. Last I checked the world is not drowning in humans, ever been in the western US? texas comes to mind… (we just seem to all pack together really tight, like japan.)

 

[whatevergirl]

There is no sense mourning for something that does not exist. Like I give a damn if I wasnt born in the first place. Nobody got killed, nobody suffered… no reason to complain.

I agree. I only recommend artificial contraception to societies and families who would suffer with an expanded population.

Of course. Life is (almost) always glad to be alive. And we should protect those who are already born. But the point is, something that wasnt born doesnt give a damn. Population control still makes sense.

many people have to drive long distances because jobs were already taken at where they live. its not like the olden days where you can just farm a land anywhere. we should fix our environment first before we make things worst (through overpopulation).

I think that you are appealing in your posts, in a secular way. If God failed to exist…let’s say, there is no God for a moment, then your theory is not a bad one…nor an immoral one. You make sense, from a secular perspective, to a degree…but, if one believes in God, and wants to please God, then one would naturally want to follow God’s laws–and God doesn’t condone artificial contraception. Your reasoning, or anyone else’s that leaves God out of the equation will never appeal to a religious Catholic, because our sense of reasoning aligns with God, first. Then, we think of secular issues, second.

But from a secular perspective, people back in the early 1900’s…and before, were having very large families. My dad was one of 11, my mom one of 8…my husband was one of nine kids. Large families don’t cause poverty…corrupt governments in Africa, etc…cause poverty for its people. So, the people should minimize their families because the government will see to it that those children will never eat, or lead normal lives?

 

[kentuckyliz]

To add to mannyfit’s post about the health issues surrounding hormonal contraception: very true. To flesh out the detail, the epidemiological evidence is that using hormonal contraception leads to greater illness (morbidity) and death (mortality) in women, even when match for race, SES, and other existing health conditions (or perfect health). So basically, a woman is trading her health and lifespan to give round-the-calendar sexual access.

The link between hormonal contraception and breast cancer is powerful. The risk skyrockets with five years of use ever (regardless of recency). Nowadays girls start using hormonal contraception in their teens and spend most of their adult life on it, thereby increasing their risk dramatically. The widespread use of hormonal contraception for long periods of time and/or starting at ever younger ages corresponds with the booming epidemic in breast cancer, including very aggressive cancers that strike women in their 20s and 30s. I see many of these young women with breast cancer at the cancer center. It’s truly sad.

Mom used the BCP for eight years and died of breast cancer at age 62, four years after diagnosis.

I have never used hormonal contraception, mine is probably more related to being nulliparous.

Obesity is also a related cause of breast cancer, and how does that work? Fat tissue is not inert; it is living tissue that generates…estrogen. The increased estrogen load in the body also causes breast cancer.

Hormonal contraception causes weight gain, so it’s a double whammy–dumping hormones into the system and increasing body fat which manufactures additional estrogen.

Starting hormonal contraception young and using it for years is also part of the cause of the infertility epidemic. The woman’s body never regains its ability to regulate its hormones and stays permanently infertile out of “habit.”

I’ve found this in my years of reading on the subject and confirmed it in conversations with my cousin, a world-class epidemiologist who supervises research worldwide and has an O.B.E.

Natural fertility regulation is a viable alternative, based on actual results. It is being taught to illiterate third world women (and men) using metaphors and methods that are culturally relevant, and they are practicing it successfully. The results are evaluated incorporating the motivational level of the couple–how strongly they desire to achieve or avoid pregnancy. (Natural fertility regulation is used for both purposes.)

If illiterate third world people can do it, I think we smartypants first worlders can too. It’s more of a matter of differing values though, because first worlders are more anti-natal and materialistic in their values. The lowest reproductivity is among wealthy whites. There’s a lot of anxiety among the wealthy white first worlders about contracepting poor dirty brown third worlders because they realize that one day they will be overtaken by the demographics. If you pay attention you can hear it in the jingoism of the left and the right.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/happy/057.gif

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

I admit I’m running into this a little late, but it’s an appealing debated to me (I’ve spent plenty of time trying to reconcile this issue) and I have a few things to contribute.

Namely, the whole debate (or at least the Catholic side of it) HINGES ON GOD. Now, I’m no anti-theist, but it seems ridiculous to bring in God whenever ordinary logic doesn’t suffice. In the context of this thread, the OP mentions Artificial Contraception, so what does everyone else say?..“It’s dangerous and may cause breast cancer” (logical). So then the OP mentions condoms, but what’s the response?..“They are only 95% and sometimes burst, so we should never use them at all.” (just barely reasonable). Quite frankly, if anyone here is *really *worried about the effectiveness of condoms, they should join join the crusade to make them indestructible!

But from experience I know that that’s not the real issue here, and if anything, condom-bursting is merely the limit of evidence-based argumentation before the anti-birth-control-argument bursts out into speculative-theology.

If this debate continues for long, we’ll probably get into how a condom destroys the unitive act of marriage as established by God. Without God, where’s the rulebook on how this “unitive marital act” should be carried. Keep in mind that 2/3 of the world doesn’t even agree with the Catholic play book.

So as far as I can see, the only thing leakier than a 95% effective condom is the true reason why Catholics think ABC should be prohibited. But, I know that few will agree, so I’ll welcomingly engage in discussion as long as I can…(I’ll be gone for tomorrow and most of the weekend ).

 

[Mannyfit75]

I admit I’m running into this a little late, but it’s an appealing debated to me (I’ve spent plenty of time trying to reconcile this issue) and I have a few things to contribute.

Namely, the whole debate (or at least the Catholic side of it) HINGES ON GOD. Now, I’m no anti-theist, but it seems ridiculous to bring in God whenever ordinary logic doesn’t suffice. In the context of this thread, the OP mentions Artificial Contraception, so what does everyone else say?..“It’s dangerous and may cause breast cancer” (logical). So then the OP mentions condoms, but what’s the response?..“They are only 95% and sometimes burst, so we should never use them at all.” (just barely reasonable). Quite frankly, if anyone here is *really *worried about the effectiveness of condoms, they should join join the crusade to make them indestructible!

No one has made the effort as far as I know.

But from experience I know that that’s not the real issue here, and if anything, condom-bursting is merely the limit of evidence-based argumentation before the anti-birth-control-argument bursts out into speculative-theology.

then why do people claim it is 95% effective. By this stats, it isn’t 100% effective.

If this debate continues for long, we’ll probably get into how a condom destroys the unitive act of marriage as established by God. Without God, where’s the rulebook on how this “unitive marital act” should be carried. Keep in mind that 2/3 of the world doesn’t even agree with the Catholic play book.

So as far as I can see, the only thing leakier than a 95% effective condom is the true reason why Catholics think ABC should be prohibited. But, I know that few will agree, so I’ll welcomingly engage in discussion as long as I can…(I’ll be gone for tomorrow and most of the weekend ).

ABC is prohited by the Catholic Church’s moral teaching. Any Catholic who have a problem with this has issues with the God himself.

I always keep this in mind. "He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me. He who rejects me, reject the one who sent me." These are Jesus own words when he addressed his disciples. The Bishop and the Pope are the successors of the Apostle.

Indeed, 2/3 does not agree with the Church because the Church law are God’s Law. We rather obey God than men. People who** seek the world will lose it**, those who seek heaven will gain it.

 

[Laurence_of_PA]

No one has made the effort as far as I know.

In that case, take up the fight and you’ll be the sole hero!

But why stop there? Afterwards you could use your fame to eradicate Smallpox!

ABC is prohited by the Catholic Church’s moral teaching. Any Catholic who have a problem with this has issues with the God himself.

Then I guess I *do *have problems with God. Thanks for the revelation; I would have never guessed!

I always keep this in mind. "He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me. He who rejects me, reject the one who sent me." These are Jesus own words when he addressed his disciples. The Bishop and the Pope are the successors of the Apostle.

If I were to ask a doctor why stabbing yourself to death is unhealthy, why would he bother pull out scripture when a logical explanation would be more convenient? The point is, your argument rests on the absolute authority of the Church and the Catholic conception of God…but little else I’m afraid.

However…

Could you at least agree that a non-believer would have absolutely no reason to accept the Church’s position here.

Indeed, 2/3 does not agree with the Church because the Church law are God’s Law. We rather obey God than men. People who** seek the world will lose it**, those who seek heaven will gain it.

Everything I’ve been informed of regarding contraception has come from the computer screens of men…

 

[Newbie2]

1. Artificial Contraception is charitable in a crowded world because because a reduced family size help conserve resources, which is beneficial to everybody.
2. Artificial Contraception is a charitable option for couples in poverty for the obvious reason that couple would be able to care well for the limited number of children that they can afford to raise.
3. Artificial Contraception is realistic because the world is drowning in human population & humans cant stop having sex.

Same arguments are valid for NFP, no?

All three of the OP’s original points argue that the ends justify the means.

That’s extremely weak reasoning on any issue, regardless of what you think of the ends in question.

 

[jemfinch]

tell that to the malnourished & dying kids of africa.

They were exactly whom I was thinking of when I wrote of inequitable distribution of resources. The way to solve their problem isn’t to get rid of them: the way to solve it is to help them.

i agree. but the more options the merrier.

Not really.

You are hiding under a shell.

You’re being influenced by temporally popular beliefs. We can both make accusations, but what’s the point?

The fact that planetary weather is rapidly being altered by human population disproves your assertion.

That fact hasn’t been proven to my satisfaction.

And humans can choose not to have sex? Of course, we can. But realistically thats not happening. We always give in. Even some of your catholic priests.

Human weakness is not a justification for lowering the standards of morality. If you lower the standards, the same people that fail to meet the high standard will start falling short of the lower standard, and you’ll be in exactly the same situation, except with lower standards.

I’m not speaking from lack of experience here: my wife and I dated for four and a half years before we were married, and were both virgins on our wedding day. People who want to be moral will (with God’s help) do it even if the standards are kept high.

Jeremy

 

[AgnosTheist]

They were exactly whom I was thinking of when I wrote of inequitable distribution of resources. The way to solve their problem isn’t to get rid of them: the way to solve it is to help them.

and one of the ways of helping them is to to encourage family planning. effectively limit the number of children until the society is fixed.

Human weakness is not a justification for lowering the standards of morality.

thats begging the question. only the rcc holds to the narrow opinion that artificial contraception is immoral. for the rest of us, and for a lot of catholics themselves, it is perfectly fine. Its charitable, realistic & practical. In short its moral.

I’m not speaking from lack of experience here: my wife and I dated for four and a half years before we were married, and were both virgins on our wedding day. People who want to be moral will (with God’s help) do it even if the standards are kept high.

So did me and my wife.

 

[RyanL]

1. Artificial Contraception is charitable in a crowded world because because a reduced family size help conserve resources, which is beneficial to everybody.

Artificial Contraception comes in two forms: chemical and latex.

Chemical forms can cause cancer, severely damage the environment, and degrade women as it treats their fertility as a disease to be cured (after all, you don’t take pills unless you’re sick) rather than a prize to be cherished.

Latex forms aren’t anywhere near as effective as chemical forms, pollute the environment with non-biodegradable substances (further depleating your precious resources in their production, I might add), and still treat fertility as a harm to be avoided, further degrading women’s bodies as they become objects to be used for sexual gratification (by themselves and by men - it’s no better when they objectify themselves) rather than persons to be respected.

A third method is NFP, which if used solely to prevent conception is more effective, more eco-friendly, cheaper (and therefore more affordable for the poor) and more respectful to women.

Seems Artificial Contraception is the loser in this analysis…

2. Artificial Contraception is a charitable option for couples in poverty for the obvious reason that couple would be able to care well for the limited number of children that they can afford to raise.

Alternate solutions:

1. Keep your pants on.
2. Use NFP.
3. Abortion on demand.
4. Infanticide on demand. Sometimes the child you could afford at the beginning becomes “unaffordable” – say the bread-winner loses their job.
5. Forced sterilization for those below the poverty line, or mandatory removal of their children for adoption / custody of the state.
6. Re-define “care well” to place love and basic education over “hotwheels” and other materialist/consumerist objects.
7. Increase charitable giving.
8. Increase welfare or other social programs so that kids don’t go hungry or uncared-for.
9. Increase the amount of chemical contraceptives used by poor people.
10. Increase the amount of latex contraceptives used by poor people.

Seems there are a number of alternatives, each with various ups and downs, and all “morally” implementable based on how you want to define your atheistic morality.

It also seems like options 1 and 2 are the cheapest, easiest, most respectful of women and most eco-friendly (see above); option 5 would seem to be a more efficient use of resources with more efficient results than ABC; option 6 requires a cultural shift, which is harder but better socially in the long run; options 7 and 8 also seem pretty good, at least until we’re rationing resources.

…which is to say that, again, Artificial Contraceptive is a loser.

3. Artificial Contraception is realistic because the world is drowning in human population & humans cant stop having sex.

1. The only thing we’re drowning in is hedonism.
2. Rather than implement measures to stop global pollution in the products we use, you’re advocating we eliminate the polluters. That just seems wrong-headed. Rather than cure an illness you want to shoot the patient. Yeah, I guess that would stop the illness, too…
3. Quadriplegics seem to live long enough without having sex, as do their spouses. So do hermits. So do most priests and nuns. So do “promise keepers”. The problem is a defect in the will, not an innate inability for any human to keep their pants on. Maybe removing the hyper-sexualized elements of society would help? Get rid of porn and toys / clothing which over-sexualize our children, like pretty much anything related to Bratz. Why not advocate that rather than chalking it up to a lost cause?

Defeatism masquerading as moral high-ground is not a pretty thing to watch.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mannyfit75]

In that case, take up the fight and you’ll be the sole hero!

I don’t consider myself a hero. I just do my duty as US Army Soldier and more importantly be obedient to God’s Church, which is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.

But why stop there? Afterwards you could use your fame to eradicate Smallpox!

I had my smallpox vaccine prior to my deployment. All Soldiers do.

Then I guess I *do *have problems with God. Thanks for the revelation; I would have never guessed!

Yes, you do. It is not my problem, but your problem with God. I’m only hear to preach the truth, brother.

If I were to ask a doctor why stabbing yourself to death is unhealthy, why would he bother pull out scripture when a logical explanation would be more convenient? The point is, your argument rests on the absolute authority of the Church and the Catholic conception of God…but little else I’m afraid.

The doctor’s profession deals specifically with your health and well being in this physical world.

The Church has authority over the immortality of your soul. Since the Magisterium of the Church has given given authority by her Spouse, Jesus Christ. You should be afraid because rejecting the Church is also rejecting Christ. For the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.

I recall the words of Jesus to St. Paul prior to his conversion. “Saul, Saul! Why are you persecuting me?”

Who is Saul persecuting, the Church.

However…

Could you at least agree that a non-believer would have absolutely no reason to accept the Church’s position here.

Your profile state you are a struggling Catholic. Would you consider yourself a believer, or not?

Everything I’ve been informed of regarding contraception has come from the computer screens of men…

I recommend you read the Papal Encyclical Humane Vitae, and the Theology of the Body. These books will enlighten you on the Church position on human sexuality.

 

[RyanL]

thats begging the question. only the rcc holds to the narrow opinion that artificial contraception is immoral. for the rest of us, and for a lot of catholics themselves, it is perfectly fine. Its charitable, realistic & practical. In short its moral.

*“If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don’t make it a leg.” *-- Abraham Lincoln

God Bless,
RyanL