Contraception

[JRKH]

We were talking about the effect on society- e.g. unintended pregnancies and such. On the societal level, there is an enormous different between an unwed couple having sex and an out of wedlock pregnancy.

Perhaps that is what you are talking about and that’s fine.
But here on this catholic discussion borad, I am talking about the effect on the soul of believers.

peace
James

 

[mchale]

Because the average biker does things he wouldn’t have done other wise without a helmet- but at every risk level, you are better off with a helmet. If people choose to be less safe when they wear a helmet (or use birth control) that is a reflection on the person, not the helmet (or birth control).

If providing protection results in people increasing their risk level, then there is no benefit to them. From a moral perspective, giving birth control to kids, if it encourages them to increase their risk level (i.e., have sex) actually does them harm. Girls are talked into having sex before they are ready, potentially doing them psychological or emotional harm and of course their is the spiritual harm it does.

So to draw this into a start contrast.

If the number of unwanted pregnancies is the same under either scenario, but birth control encourages more teens to have sex than would have otherwise, then we can conclude that based solely on the criteria of unwanted pregnancies, there is no particular reason to pick one choice over the other. However, we know that having sex at too young an age can do psychological harm, and as Catholics, we believe it does spiritual harm. Therefore it is best to teach them to abstain from sex.

Take a car with no antilock breaks and a car with antilock breaks and two drivers who drive the exact same way- who is safer?

Except they won’t drive the same way. You keep trying to engage in rhetorical slight of hand. The point is that overall, there is no benefit! Yes, some people will be saved from crashes, but an equal number will end up in crashes because of anti-lock brakes.

Giving protection that encourages risky behavior is no benefit at all!

Again though, a reflection on people- not birth control.

And what is your point? We are talking about how to approach a subject that involves people. If a protection encourages behavior that nullifies the protection, then the protection is of no benefit.

–
Bill

 

[alongexpected]

The problem with common sense is that it is often wrong!

You have stated that it is a fact that Contraceptives cut down on unwanted pregnancies? Prove it! Just because you think it is obvious that it is the case, doesn’t make it so.

Once you prove your first position, we will take a look at your second position.

–
Bill

Logic is now absent from this thread, so I must be as well.

 

[Brooklyn]

What?! Are you being serious? Of course it has. It’s just common sense.

Fact: Contraceptives have CUT DOWN ON unwanted pregnancies. Which leads to obvious fact #2: Because there’s fewer unwanted pregnancies, there’s fewer abortions. I don’t understand how someone could refute this.

You’re assuming that all abortions are surgical abortions. If you’re into statistics, here is an interesting statistic:

"Chemical abortions in the United States (1965-2005)

Because many contraceptive measures are abortifacients (drugs that induce or cause abortions), it is important not to overlook the number of children killed by chemical abortions. Since 1965, an average of 11 million women have used abortifacient methods of birth control in the United States at any given time. Using formulas based on the way the birth control pill works, pharmacy experts project that about 14 million chemical abortions occur in the United States each year, giving a projected total of well in excess of 560 million chemical abortions between 1965 and 2005."

all.org/article.php?id=10123

This is one of the biggest problems with birth control. Most birth control does not prevent pregnancy, it just aborts the fertilized egg. That is an abortion!

I like this answer as to why the Church demands that a married couple be open to life:

"God’s plan for us to love as he loves is stamped into our very being, and so there is really only one question to ask when it comes to sexual morality: “Am I expressing God’s love through my body?” When a married couple does this, they become what they are—an image of Trinitarian love—and through this they unveil the love of God to the world. The act of life-giving love between a husband and wife is also meant to be a mirror of the love Christ has for his Church. We should ask ourselves: “If we consider the relationship between Christ and his Church, where does contraception fit into the picture? What is contraceptive about Christ’s love?”

chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/morality/why-catholic-church-again

 

[mchale]

Logic is now absent from this thread, so I must be as well.

Since when is it illogical to ask for data to back an assertion!

–
Bill

 

[tjm190]

If providing protection results in people increasing their risk level, then there is no benefit to them. From a moral perspective, giving birth control to kids, if it encourages them to increase their risk level (i.e., have sex) actually does them harm. Girls are talked into having sex before they are ready, potentially doing them psychological or emotional harm and of course their is the spiritual harm it does.

So to draw this into a start contrast.

If the number of unwanted pregnancies is the same under either scenario, but birth control encourages more teens to have sex than would have otherwise, then we can conclude that based solely on the criteria of unwanted pregnancies, there is no particular reason to pick one choice over the other. However, we know that having sex at too young an age can do psychological harm, and as Catholics, we believe it does spiritual harm. Therefore it is best to teach them to abstain from sex.

I think we’re hitting an ideological difference here- If someone chooses to act more dangerously because they have a helmet, I place that on them not on helmets. The helmet does its job just fine and provides them with the benefit of a somewhat more protected head. However, their ABUSE of the helmet stops them seeing those benefits. I do not blame the helmet for the fact that people abuse helmets. Those people who do not choose to increase their risk level benefit- those who are irresponsible do not.

Except they won’t drive the same way.

That is their own fault, not that of antilock breaks.

You keep trying to engage in rhetorical slight of hand. The point is that overall, there is no benefit!

Because people abuse the phenomena.

Yes, some people will be saved from crashes, but an equal number will end up in crashes because of anti-lock brakes.

Because people will up how riskily they drive- to be perfectly honest, I haven’t changed how I drive knowing that I have antilock breaks. I see myself as receiving the full benefit.

Giving protection that encourages risky behavior is no benefit at all!

Then giving protection never creates benefit and we should disregard all forms of it.

And what is your point? We are talking about how to approach a subject that involves people. If a protection encourages behavior that nullifies the protection, then the protection is of no benefit.

–
Bill

So if people choose to abuse something, we can say it is of no benefit? Contraception gives people the ability to reduce the probability of conception during any given act of intercourse. This is abused by people, just as they abuse guns, drugs, alcohol, helmets, seat belts, antilock breaks, and modern medicine.

 

[Brooklyn]

So if people choose to abuse something, we can say it is of no benefit? Contraception gives people the ability to reduce the probability of conception during any given act of intercourse. This is abused by people, just as they abuse guns, drugs, alcohol, helmets, seat belts, antilock breaks, and modern medicine.

All of your talk of helmets, cars, motorcycles, etc. is meaningless. The purpose of sex is not to limit conception. The purpose of sex is to procreate. When sex is used only for gratification, when the life giving aspect of sex is taken away from it, it is sin. You, as a dissident Catholic, do not accept that fact, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

Also, as proven in my previous post, a great deal of contraception does not reduce conception. These kinds of contraceptions allow conception of human life. They just cause chemical abortions - that is not limiting abortions. There is still destruction of human life.

 

[tjm190]

All of your talk of helmets, cars, motorcycles, etc. is meaningless. The purpose of sex is not to limit conception. The purpose of sex is to procreate. When sex is used only for gratification, when the life giving aspect of sex is taken away from it, it is sin. You, as a dissident Catholic, do not accept that fact, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

Also, as proven in my previous post, a great deal of contraception does not reduce conception. These kinds of contraceptions allow conception of human life. They just cause chemical abortions - that is not limiting abortions. There is still destruction of human life.

We were not in a discussion about the morality of contraception, I’ve had quite a few of those, but rather on the effects of contraception.

 

[Brooklyn]

We were not in a discussion about the morality of contraception, I’ve had quite a few of those, but rather on the effects of contraception.

And as I said - the “effects” of contraception is abortion. Pure and simple. Contraception also leads to promiscuity, but I guess if we talk about that we’re getting into the “morality” again, aren’t we? But to talk about abortion is also getting into “morality.” Oh, no, I’m so confused!

 

[davidv]

We were not in a discussion about the morality of contraception, I’ve had quite a few of those, but rather on the effects of contraception.

Contraception is an immoral act. Besides possible physical effects, there exist spirituals effects. These spiritual effects far outweigh any physical effects.

 

[mchale]

I think we’re hitting an ideological difference here- If someone chooses to act more dangerously because they have a helmet, I place that on them not on helmets. The helmet does its job just fine and provides them with the benefit of a somewhat more protected head. However, their ABUSE of the helmet stops them seeing those benefits. I do not blame the helmet for the fact that people abuse helmets. Those people who do not choose to increase their risk level benefit- those who are irresponsible do not.

But we are not talking about individuals here, we are talking about society as a whole (Which is why I accused you of rhetorical slight of hand). We can’t judge the benefits to society without taking into account both the people who will benefit and those who won’t.

That is their own fault, not that of antilock breaks. Because people abuse the phenomena. Because people will up how riskily they drive- to be perfectly honest, I haven’t changed how I drive knowing that I have antilock breaks. I see myself as receiving the full benefit.

Most people do see themselves as receiving the full benefit, but most people are wrong. First of all, your safety does not just depend on your own choices, but the choices of those around you. Secondly, most of these risk decisions are not made on a fully rational level. In other words, you might be driving slightly more aggressively than you use to without realizing it because you believe you are safer in your current car.

Then giving protection never creates benefit and we should disregard all forms of it.

Thats not true either. It is possible that the level of protection overwhelms the level of risk compensation that results. Certainly cars as a whole are safer today than they were 50 years ago. But if we all drive like we drove 50 years ago, we would be even safer still.

The point with respect to contraception is, that no one has shown that the benefit overwhelms the level of risk compensation. Certainly the number of abortions and the number of single mothers (by this I mean never married and not in a long term relationship at the time of birth) in our society suggests that any perceived benefit might be compensated away.

So if people choose to abuse something, we can say it is of no benefit? Contraception gives people the ability to reduce the probability of conception during any given act of intercourse. This is abused by people, just as they abuse guns, drugs, alcohol, helmets, seat belts, antilock breaks, and modern medicine.

Lets remember here, we are specifically talking about giving contraception to teenagers. We certainly do not give drugs or alcohol to teenagers for fear that they will abuse them. In addition, we usually don’t give them full driving priviledges until they are 18 for similar reasons. Yet, we are suppose to believe that they are going to use contraception responsibly? (This is of course ignoring the very serious moral dimension of contraception)

–
Bill

 

[camerong]

I think we’re hitting an ideological difference here- If someone chooses to act more dangerously because they have a helmet, I place that on them not on helmets. The helmet does its job just fine and provides them with the benefit of a somewhat more protected head. However, their ABUSE of the helmet stops them seeing those benefits. I do not blame the helmet for the fact that people abuse helmets. Those people who do not choose to increase their risk level benefit- those who are irresponsible do not.
That is their own fault, not that of antilock breaks. Because people abuse the phenomena. Because people will up how riskily they drive- to be perfectly honest, I haven’t changed how I drive knowing that I have antilock breaks. I see myself as receiving the full benefit.

Then giving protection never creates benefit and we should disregard all forms of it.

So if people choose to abuse something, we can say it is of no benefit? Contraception gives people the ability to reduce the probability of conception during any given act of intercourse. This is abused by people, just as they abuse guns, drugs, alcohol, helmets, seat belts, antilock breaks, and modern medicine.

It seems like it has been established that condoms might well not actually lower rates of sex, unwanted pregnancies, or abortion, due to the discussed factor that people are more risky with condoms than without. So, if that is true, then condoms have no benefit–precisely because people chose to abuse them (although I would say they aren’t abusing condoms, but sex generally). On a societal level, condoms have no beneficial value, because they make people more risky. On an individual level, (we would argue) condoms compromise the morality and inhibit the formation of committed relationships (another issue, I grant you). Given those two, condoms do not, in fact, have any value.

 

[tjm190]

But we are not talking about individuals here, we are talking about society as a whole (Which is why I accused you of rhetorical slight of hand). We can’t judge the benefits to society without taking into account both the people who will benefit and those who won’t.

Then of course guns, antilock breaks, contraception, alcohol, television, and perhaps even the internet have negative effects on society when you consider the prevalence of abuse of these things. But all of these are useful tools.

Most people do see themselves as receiving the full benefit, but most people are wrong. First of all, your safety does not just depend on your own choices, but the choices of those around you. Secondly, most of these risk decisions are not made on a fully rational level. In other words, you might be driving slightly more aggressively than you use to without realizing it because you believe you are safer in your current car.

I’ve driven a car without antilock brakes- I can assure, aside from the fact that the car was a piece of garbage and I’m glad to be rid of it, I didn’t drive differently. An example of something you don’t receive the full benefit of is a seatbelt, atleast in terms of safety. Try forcing yourself to drive at a reasonable speed with no seatbelt.

Thats not true either. It is possible that the level of protection overwhelms the level of risk compensation that results. Certainly cars as a whole are safer today than they were 50 years ago. But if we all drive like we drove 50 years ago, we would be even safer still.

The point with respect to contraception is, that no one has shown that the benefit overwhelms the level of risk compensation. Certainly the number of abortions and the number of single mothers (by this I mean never married and not in a long term relationship at the time of birth) in our society suggests that any perceived benefit might be compensated away.

The change of society since contraception was introduced can not all be attributed to contraception- society had been becoming less and less family oriented throughout the 1900’s.

Lets remember here, we are specifically talking about giving contraception to teenagers. We certainly do not give drugs or alcohol to teenagers for fear that they will abuse them. In addition, we usually don’t give them full driving priviledges until they are 18 for similar reasons. Yet, we are suppose to believe that they are going to use contraception responsibly? (This is of course ignoring the very serious moral dimension of contraception)

–
Bill

The argument goes like this- condom usage has 14 or so rate of failure with typical use over the course of a year. So after a year of typical use 14% of women will have conceived. The odds of conceiving after a year of unprotected intercourse is roughly 85%. So, let’s say 100 people have contraception and use it regularly for a year. We can expect 14 pregnancies. If we’re talking about teens, we now expect 14 abortions. Let’s say 100 people don’t have contraception. Odds are, not all of them are going to have sex. How many of them have to decide not to have sex for there to be fewer conceptions? Well, 14=x*.85, x=14/.85=16.47. Let’s say 17. For any value greater then or equal to 17, x*.85 is greater then 14. For there to be fewer conceptions/abortions, 83% of teens that would have sex with condoms must be dissuaded from having sex by a lack condoms. In our society, many would claim this to be unlikely.

 

[j1akey]

camerong:

Its not even remotely a matter of common sense. It is not obviously true that contraceptives have cut down on unwanted pregnancies. Let say people get pregnant without contraception 50% of the time, and people get pregnant with contraception 5% of the time (probably reasonable estimates). Its possible–even likely?–that having obtained contraception, people have sex 10 times as often, leading to the exact same number of unwanted pregnancies.

Saying people get pregnant more because they have more protected sex is like saying Catholics commit more sins because they can go to confession to be forgiven and not worry about it being that confession is basically the condom for the soul.

 

[LilyM]

What do I say to someone who says that contraception is good because no matter how much I preach about the Christian message, some young teen is still gonna have sex? what if this person said that prevention is better than abortion?

Well I’d say imposing mandatory medical examinations on all high-school girls and imposing prison or the death penalty on any found not to be virgins would be by far the most effective prevention method. It’d have to be far better than contraception, so I look forward to seeing this person advocate it.

I reckon rates of unmarried sexual activity must certainly be much lower in countries where women are permitted to be stoned or executed in other ways for unchastity.

I’d also add - where’s the evidence that contraception prevents a darn thing? In spite of its being more available than ever in the US, and teens being more educated about it than ever before, teen pregnancy rates as well as STI and abortion rates are more than high enough to indicate the opposite.

 

[j1akey]

LilyM:

Well I’d say imposing mandatory medical examinations on all high-school girls and imposing prison or the death penalty on any found not to be virgins would be by far the most effective prevention method. It’d have to be far better than contraception, so I look forward to seeing this person advocate it.

Seriously? I’m trying to figure out if you’re being sarcastic here.

 

[LilyM]

Seriously? I’m trying to figure out if you’re being sarcastic here.

Of course I’m being sarcastic.

My point is it’s a narrow and useless argument to purely consider the deterrent value of a given measure with no regard, for example, to the ethical, moral or practical import of the measure.

See, by your friend’s logic, if contraception should be permitted because it is effective, my measure should all the more be adopted because it is all the more effective.

 

[shelby2014]

Well I’d say imposing mandatory medical examinations on all high-school girls and imposing prison or the death penalty on any found not to be virgins would be by far the most effective prevention method. It’d have to be far better than contraception, so I look forward to seeing this person advocate it.

I reckon rates of unmarried sexual activity must certainly be much lower in countries where women are permitted to be stoned or executed in other ways for unchastity.

I’d also add - where’s the evidence that contraception prevents a darn thing? In spite of its being more available than ever in the US, and teens being more educated about it than ever before, teen pregnancy rates as well as STI and abortion rates are more than high enough to indicate the opposite.

Ha! Well said!

We KNOW it is POSSIBLE for teens to abstain from sex given other cultures and the history of our own culture. I think teenagers would respond better to sex-education that gave them a little more respect.