Ejaculation is not blocked either. And it is not “supposed” to go to any specific place. Any place is “optional”.
Oh, really? So how does the species reproduce, then? Asexually?
The point is, whether it is successful or not, the orgasm is naturally resultant in, eventually, the reproduction of and the continuing of the species. Any species. Wolves. Sheep. Lions. Tigers. Bears. Humans. Sex is not made only for pleasure. On a purely natural level, it is made for reproduction and the survival of the species. Contraception is intended to prevent the teleology of survival built into our bodies, and is therefore incoherent with our very biological logic.
IOW, the only reason you would make such an argument as you do would be for reasons outside of any kind of scientifically grounded position.
Economic circumstances and high infant mortality were resonsible for that.
True. Children were also cheap labor, and still are, today. (Chores, anyone?)
Today, the productivity is extremely high - as a matter of fact the farmers in the US (about 6% of the US population) produce about half of the food in the whole world. So there is no need to have many children (many of whom died at a young age), and people - wisely - prefer few children, for whom they can truly care for.
That doesn’t make any sense. It would seem to me if we can produce more resources, and can be a more productive society, we can afford to have more children and more human beings, can we not?
No wonder that in the underdeveloped world, where the productivity is low, and the economics is labor-intensive, people have more children. Not because they “want” or “cherish” more children, but because they need them for economical reasons, and besides, a very sizable percentage of those children will die prematurely.
So it does seem you are saying children are a resource, and not an ends unto themselves. That their life is geared towards personal pleasure and contentment.
I can see why you might think that. The problem with that idea was that even in Europe, long after the Renaissance, when Europe got its bearings back, many people, rich and poor, were still having big families (3+ children), even to about 50 years ago. So historically that argument makes little sense.
Another problem: the present recession. In the 60s families were double the size they are now in Europe. One reason is that the economy was better than it is today. People are having fewer children nowadays, ironically, now because things are getting better, but because they are getting worse. And people fear they will not be able to take care of their children well if they, say, lose their jobs. Or their houses. I’m not saying I agree with this position, but that seems to be the way things are going.
Something of a Morton’s fork. Or a Xanatos gambit…
Either way, you are quite right about one thing: children are good for economical reasons, if not immediately. Economics 101 is that any country with all the material resources in the world but no people is worse off than a country with many, many people but no resources. An economy can grow with people in it. It can’t without them. People are necessary to civilization in all aspects. It therefore makes no sense to prevent their existence for the reason of making the economy better.
People have been practising all sorts of preventive measures since the dawn of time. Now there are more reliable methods. The practice did not change, the reliablity increased. The so-called NFP method is just another attempt to prevent conception. The funny thing is that you say: “it is the intent what matters”, but when it comes to prevention, it suddenly changes, and now the method “matters” and not the intent.
If I said the regulation of births was a wrong thing, I repent. It is wholly against Church teaching to say that this is a bad cause for contraception, or NFP.
Have a look at
Humanae Vitae, particularly sections 10, 16, and 17.
The problem with contraception is not that it prevents pregnancy, nor that it is used to intend to do so, I guess. It is a problem, though, that it doesn’t offer anything useful in doing so. It doesn’t teach a person anything about his or her body, or their partner’s. It doesn’t make a person more responsible, unlike continence (or abstaining from sex during fertile periods). It does impair a healthy functioning of a body. And it divorces the procreative act from something it is supposed to carry out at some point if not always: procreation.
Now, it is harder, but NFP can be abused in the same way, somewhat. But only a fool could or would.
I am quite sure that you can use your imagination and realize that there are ways and means to be 100% sure that there will be no conception.
Go back. I already addressed this issue in the section you reply to next…
Nope, it is a normal variation, it will reach everyone with age. To get old, and lose one’s fertility is not a “disease”.
Tell that to this guy. It may get more difficult for men to sire children into the world. But it’s never impossible with a young enough woman and enough time. Women do, though, cease to be fertile at a point. But only after menopause.
In other words, infertility in men, and in women before the onset of menopause, is unusual. Abnormal. And therefore a disease. Menopause is the normal course of things. A chemical imbalance (imbalance - a lack of balance, a lack of normality) which causes infertility is NOT.
There are quite a few believers (even catholics) who see nothing wrong with endorsing the loving relationship between two humans, even if they are of the same gender. It is not a “confrontation” between atheists and believers, it is a confrontation between the hard-liners and the permissive ones.
