Contraception Debate

[BruceK]

**I’ve been having this ongoing debate with this person who goes by the name of Sub, now he is of the belief that Artificial Birth Control is moral. He presents the following but lengthy thesis how this is so. **

Me: *You have never made the logical connection between what is said in HV para.11 and the morality of ABC. *
Sub: I have posted many times the argument connecting the fact that God created human sexuality so that the two ends of conjugal intercourse are not “inseparably connected” - which HV 11 confirms - and the morality of ABC.

I have posted many times arguments demonstrating that the inseparable connection on which HVs prohibition of ABC is founded is false and violates natural law. In fact, natural law theory provides a strong argument for the morality of ABC.

The Natural Law Argument for ABC

Father Joseph Koterski, S.J., in his course titled Natural Law and Human Nature, states:

The mainstream of natural law theory has tended to see the source of moral obligation to reside in the teleology or end directedness that is designed into human existence by the author of human nature as the author of the universe. This perspective in turn implies that the ultimate source of moral obligation is rooted in the divine designer of human nature.

This natural law argument for the good of ABC is based on the ultimate (proper) end of conjugal intercourse willed by God from the beginning. It takes the following steps:

• The proper end, the end per se, of conjugal intercourse is the propagation of the species, Homo. * The achievement of this proper end requires two separate proximate ends, procreation and unification, which are subordinate to the proper end.
• The procreative end and the unitive end of conjugal intercourse are often in conflict.
• ABC, like NFP, resolves this conflict in support of the ultimate end and consistent with the ultimate end by excluding procreation from conjugal intercourse.
• Therefore, ABC, like NFP, is good.

The Proper End, The First and Basic Good, of Conjugal Intercourse Is the Propagation of the Species Homo

Following Jesus example in Mark 10 and Matthew 19, the proper end of conjugal intercourse can be found in the beginning.

Gn 1-27: God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.

Gn 1-28: God blessed them saying, Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it… Gn 2: 24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.

From these passages, we see that God created human sexuality so that humans could participate in his act of continuing creation - the propagation of the species Homo: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it…

**End of part 1 **

 

[BruceK]

Part 2 of my debate with Sub:

Sub: Consistent with Gods will from the beginning as articulated in Genesis, John Paul II in Love and Responsibility (L&R) defines the end toward which the sexual urge in humans is directed. (Numbers in brackets are page numbers in L&R.)

[51] The proper end of the [sexual] urge, the end per se, is something supranatural, the existence of the species Homo, the constant prolongation of its existence.

[218] The inner and essential raison detre of marriage is not simply eventual transformation into a family but above all the creation of a lasting personal union between a man and a woman based on love. Marriage serves above all to preserve the existence of the species, … but it is based on love.

From both Scripture and John Paul II, one sees clearly that the purpose of human sexuality is the propagation of the species - Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it…

But, John Paul II explains further:

[51] The species Homo is a part of nature, and the sexual urge operating within the species ensures its existence. Now existence is the first and basic good of every creature. The existence of the species Homo is the first and basic good for that species. All other goods derive from this basic good.

Now, the sexual urge accomplishes its proper end, the first and basic good of the species Homo, through its expression in conjugal intercourse. So the goods of procreation and unification in conjugal intercourse are derived from and therefore subservient to the first and basic good of conjugal intercourse, the propagation of the species Homo. The two proximate ends of conjugal intercourse are likewise derived from and therefore subservient to its proper end, the propagation of the species Homo. This is consistent with Gn 1-28: Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it It is also consistent with Gods will revealed through His creation of human sexuality that conjugal intercourse serve two separate proximate ends, procreation and unification, in support of the proper end the propagation of the species Homo. HV11 recognizes the truth of this when it says:

HV11: Indeed, as experience bears witness, not every act of marital intercourse is followed by a new life. God has wisely arranged natural laws and rhythms of fertility which already of themselves bring about a separation in the succession of births.

John Paul II also says:

[52] An overall view of the sexual urge, which is so closely bound up with the existence of the species Homo and possesses, as has been said, an existential character, is therefore the prerogative of philosophy: This is very important when we are trying to determine the true importance of the sexual urge, which has obvious implications in the realm of sexual morality.

Based on Genesis, John Pauls three passages ([51], [52] and [218]) and on the natural law rationale, we can discern the obvious implications of the sexual urge and its expression in conjugal intercourse in the realm of sexual morality. If the existence of the species Homo is the first and basic good for that species; if the proper end of the sexual urge, the end per se, is its existence; and if the sexual urge operating within the species ensures its existence; then one must recognize that those responses to the sexual urge that are properly directed toward its ultimate end, the existence of the species Homo, are in accordance with and are directed toward the first and basic good of that species and therefore, are good. They are in accordance with Gods will. They are moral.

End of part 2.

 

[BruceK]

Part 3 of my debate with Sub:

Sub: The Proximate Ends of Conjugal Intercourse: Procreation and Unification

The sexual urge accomplishes its proper (ultimate) end, the first and basic good of the species Homo, through its expression in conjugal intercourse. Conjugal intercourse accomplishes that proper end through two separate proximate ends, procreation and unification.

Two things are necessary for the continuing existence of the species Homo: 1) reproduction and 2) nurture, protection and education of offspring until they can survive on their own and function as responsible members of society. For, as Casti Connibii (para16) explains:

The blessing of offspring, however, is not completed by the mere begetting of them, but something else must be added, namely the proper education of the offspring. For no one can fail to see that children are incapable of providing wholly for themselves, even in matters pertaining to their natural life, and much less in those pertaining to the supernatural, but require many years to be helped, instructed, and educated by others.

And John Paul II writes in L&R:

[63] The socio-economic problem of procreation is encountered at many levels. It is, quite simply, not enough merely to bring children into the world: they must also be maintained and educated.

Casti Connubii, John Paul II and common sense tell us that procreation, per se, will not assure the continuation of the species; that conjugal intercourse operating within the species can only ensure its continuation if it results in both procreation and the nurture, protection and education of the offspring; that humans can only multiply; fill the earth and subdue it if conjugal intercourse results in both procreation and the nurture, protection and education of the offspring.

The role of conjugal intercourse in procreation is obvious. But, what necessary role does conjugal intercourse play in the nurture, protection and education of the offspring? John Paul II explains that the necessary role that the conjugal intercourse plays in the nurture, protection and education of the offspring is to support lifelong marriages through the proximate end of unification the development of love.

[223] [Marital] Intercourse is necessary to love, not just to procreation. Marriage is an institution which exists for the sake of love, not merely for the purpose of biological reproduction.

[225] Amongst the other factors [of married life] their sexual relations are especially important since they affect the development of love [parental bonding] between persons very directly.

[233] There is no reason to hold that sexual intercourse must have conception as its end.

[Recent discoveries in neuroscience support John Paul IIs observations.]

Vatican II, as presented by Germain Grisez, Joseph Boyle, Jr., John Finnis & William E. May, in their article EVERY MARITAL ACT OUGHT TO BE OPEN TO NEW LIFE: TOWARD A CLEARER UNDESTANDING, recognize the necessary role that the conjugal intercourse plays in the nurture, protection and education of the offspring by highlighting the effects of the lack of conjugal intercourse on the conjugal bond.

One must admit that sexual abstinence can have the bad effects often attributed to it. <st1lace w:st=“on”>Vatican</st1lace> II (Gaudium et spes, 51) teaches: Where the intimacy of married life is broken off, it is not rare for its faithfulness to be imperiled and its quality of faithfulness ruined. For the upbringing of children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered. In plain language, the husband and wife become irritable with one another and express their feelings be treating their children badly; they may be tempted to commit adultery, at least in thought; their love cools, and they are unlikely to welcome another child; the marriage may even end in divorce.

So in addition to its procreative end, conjugal intercourse is necessary for parental bonding (unification end) and lifelong marriages in order to provide for the nurture, protection and education of offspring; which are necessary to achieve the proper end, the first and basic good of conjugal intercourse, the propagation of the species Homo.

End of Part 3.

 

[BruceK]

Finally, Part 4.

Sub: Procreation and Unification Are Often in Conflict

Procreation can be initiated in minutes. But since human offspring must be nurtured, protected and educated for decades, this requires parental bonding (lifelong marriages) for which parents sexual relations are especially important, and for which intercourse is necessary. Since there is no reason to hold that sexual intercourse must necessarily have conception as its end; and since parental bonding (love) is required continually for decades while procreation, for many justifiable reasons, may not be desirable during most occasions of conjugal intercourse, it must be recognized that procreation and unification (parental bonding) are often in conflict.

Rev. Ronald Lawler, O.F.M., Joseph Boyle, Jr. & William E. May in Catholic Sexual Ethics (pg 153) recognize this conflict:

Or if for some special reason they should not have a child, they know that this is not because the child is not a good thing and that having children is not desirable, but because in these circumstances such a good would involve also harms that they wish to avoid.

John Paul II recognizes this conflict in L&R:

[231] A man and a woman may be afraid of a child: often a child is not only a joy but also there is no denying it a burden. But when fear of having a child goes too far, it paralyses love.

[237] The mutual need of the two persons for each other expresses itself also in the need for sexual intercourse. This being so, the idea of refraining from intercourse inevitably runs into certain difficulties and objections. On the other hand, a couple who do not sometimes refrain from sexual intercourse may see their family increase excessively.

[279] A man and a woman who have marital relations have a responsibility for every conception, not only to themselves but also to the family which they are founding or increasing by that conception.

[281] Clinical experience also confirms the thesis that fear of pregnancy also deprives a woman of that joy in the spontaneous experience of loveThis fear, as a dominant emotion, prevails over all feelings and leads to incalculable reactions.

God created human sexuality so that conjugal intercourse accomplishes its ultimate end, the continuation of the species Homo, through two separate proximate ends, procreation and unification. But, as Rev. Lawler, O.F.M., et al, John Paul II, experience and common sense tell us, these two proximate ends are often in conflict.

ABC, Like NFP, Resolves This Conflict to Support the Proper End, the First and Basic Good of Conjugal Intercourse

How then does a married couple resolve this conflict in order to accomplish the proper end, the end per se of conjugal intercourse? To resolve this conflict, the accomplishment of the proper end requires that the proximate parental bonding end (the unitive end) be capable of pursuit through conjugal intercourse to the exclusion of procreation. Since this is the purpose of NFP, the Churchs sanction of NFP recognizes this conflict and confirms this conclusion. Conjugal acts that, for proper reasons, exclude procreation in order to further conjugal bonding (the development of love) must be recognized as being in accordance with and directed toward ultimate end, the end per se of conjugal intercourse.

ABC, like NFP, Is Moral - It Is Good

Since ABC, like NFP, allows conjugal intercourse to support conjugal bonding to the exclusion of procreation, it must be recognized as being in accordance with and directed toward the proper end, the end per se of conjugal intercourse the first and basic good of the species Homo. And therefore, it is moral according to the mainstream of natural law theory. Properly used within marriage, i.e., for the same reasons that justify NFP, ABC is good.

**I don’t expect a blow-by-blow rebuttal but at least a summation of a reply to give to my antagonist in this debate. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. **

 

[pira114]

Wow. That was lengthy. But you warned us. Anyway, I seriously doubt you will be able to debate him logically. From a logic stand point, I agree with him. But logic is not where Catholics get their direction from. We get it from the Church.

 

[BruceK]

Wow. That was lengthy. But you warned us. Anyway, I seriously doubt you will be able to debate him logically. From a logic stand point, I agree with him. But logic is not where Catholics get their direction from. We get it from the Church.

Yes, we do get guidance from the Church. But the Church is not antithetical to logic and reason. After-all, the Church did condemn fidiesm.

 

[BruceK]

Here’s more of my exchange with Sub, this time his argument is much shorter. Now if anyone here wants to take a stab at it please, by all means, volunteer.

Sub: Let’s start by analyzing the one sentence first paragraph in Humanae Vitae 12 that sets out the fundamental principle on which HV’s edicts are based.

Two Inseparable Aspects: Union and Procreation

HV12 This teaching [that each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life], set forth by the Magisterium on numerous occasions, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and which man may not break on his own initiative, between the two significances of the conjugal act: the unitive significance and the procreative significance.

HV12 is the first time that the inseparable connection is articulated; yet, HV provides no basis for this assertion. Is the inseparable connection really willed by God?

Gods Will As Revealed Through His Creation of Humans

To understand Gods will as revealed from the beginning through His creation of humans, one need only contrast human sexuality to that of virtually all of the rest of the animal species. We know that with respect to sexual behavior, God created humans distinctly different than almost all other animal species. Namely, in the human species, the willingness and readiness of humans to engage in sexual intercourse is independent of the female fertility cycle. In only one or two other animal species will females indulge in sexual intercourse when the female is not in a fertile period; or will the female indulge in sexual intercourse during pregnancy. Thus, God created most species so that procreation is the only purpose of sexual intercourse sexual intercourse is inseparably connected to its reproductive function.

God created humans, however, so that sexual intercourse occurs independently of the fertility cycle and thus is not inseparably connected to procreation. Human sexual intercourse is closed to procreation, i.e., is separated from procreation, for (on average) 21 out of 28 days of the fertility cycle. In humans, God clearly did not will that the two ends of the conjugal act, the unitive end and the procreative end, be inseparably connected. In fact, He created humans so that this would not be true. Gods will from the beginning, as revealed through his creation of humans, tells us unambiguously that HV12s inseparable connection is false. God, speaking the language of the body through His creation of human sexuality, tells us that HV12s inseparable connection is false.

So what are errors and logical fallacies in his argument? Any takers?

 

[BruceK]

Here’s more of my exchange with Sub, this time his argument is much shorter. Now if anyone here wants to take a stab at it please, by all means, volunteer.

Sub: Let’s start by analyzing the one sentence first paragraph in Humanae Vitae 12 that sets out the fundamental principle on which HV’s edicts are based.

Two Inseparable Aspects: Union and Procreation

HV12 This teaching [that each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life], set forth by the Magisterium on numerous occasions, is founded upon the inseparable connection, willed by God and which man may not break on his own initiative, between the two significances of the conjugal act: the unitive significance and the procreative significance.

HV12 is the first time that the inseparable connection is articulated; yet, HV provides no basis for this assertion. Is the inseparable connection really willed by God?

Gods Will As Revealed Through His Creation of Humans

To understand Gods will as revealed from the beginning through His creation of humans, one need only contrast human sexuality to that of virtually all of the rest of the animal species. We know that with respect to sexual behavior, God created humans distinctly different than almost all other animal species. Namely, in the human species, the willingness and readiness of humans to engage in sexual intercourse is independent of the female fertility cycle. In only one or two other animal species will females indulge in sexual intercourse when the female is not in a fertile period; or will the female indulge in sexual intercourse during pregnancy. Thus, God created most species so that procreation is the only purpose of sexual intercourse sexual intercourse is inseparably connected to its reproductive function.

God created humans, however, so that sexual intercourse occurs independently of the fertility cycle and thus is not inseparably connected to procreation. Human sexual intercourse is closed to procreation, i.e., is separated from procreation, for (on average) 21 out of 28 days of the fertility cycle. In humans, God clearly did not will that the two ends of the conjugal act, the unitive end and the procreative end, be inseparably connected. In fact, He created humans so that this would not be true. Gods will from the beginning, as revealed through his creation of humans, tells us unambiguously that HV12s inseparable connection is false. God, speaking the language of the body through His creation of human sexuality, tells us that HV12s inseparable connection is false.

So what are errors and logical fallacies in his argument? Any takers?

 

[Alindawyl]

His error is to base his entire argument on a distraction. It doesn’t matter how intricate he is at mental gymnastics. No amount of sleight-of-hand can disguise the fact that he is arguing for the morality of contraception. And HV14 rather bluntly states that contraception is not permitted:

*14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.*

Taking this into account, and after reading the documents cited in footnotes 14-16 (which are rather extensive), perhaps he will be less willing to argue that contraception is a moral good.

 

[white_sheep]

Yes, we do get guidance from the Church. But the Church is not antithetical to logic and reason. After-all, the Church did condemn fidiesm.

More than that, the teachings of the Church are always the most logical position you could hold, all things considered.