Is this good reasoning against artificial birth control/contraception?

[MarcoPolo]

I think the foundational argument against artificial birth control/contraception is the idea that God granted mankind the procreative faculties as a gift to be used in the union of the complimentary genders He also granted us as gifts, within the covenantal promise of marital, life-giving potential, love. And sin is by definition an affront against God, so contraception is a sin. This thread is NOT about that idea per se, but I want to point out that the below is a complimentary argument to the above.

But I consider the following (which I’m sure someone much smarter than me has articulated well-before me): But from the perspective of a woman, to desire contraception to prevent an “unwanted” pregnancy, does she not de facto facilitate the sexual objectification of herself? For if she were to limit her sexual activity only to occasions that remain open to life, then she de facto moves in a direction that de-objectifies herself----why?----because if the male partner is aware that a human life might be conceived as a result of his actions with the woman, then he must look beyond the woman as an object of gratification, but as a person with whom he must decide he wishes to commit himself with as a partner in rearing a child (or even another one). (And yes, this assumes that most men are not complete deadbeats who go on the lam in the event of a pregnancy.)

Although the above was not mentioned in the show, this idea came to the forefront of my thinking after hearing an interview by Al Kresta of Suzanne Venker. Venker, along with Phyllis Schlafly, are authors of the new book The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know – and Men Can’t Say.

I welcome feedback and thoughts. I’ll probably lurk in the thread long enough until it degenerates in to its destiny of a polemic carnival.

 

[ganonscrub]

I would disagree. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that having sex for pleasure was a bad thing or that the woman taking measures from having a child is an affront to God.

On the topic of the woman objectifying herself, even if that was the case would it really matter? A woman can do what she wants with her own body and if she wishes to have sex without getting pregnant then it is up to her to make that decision. The objectification of a woman is useless when reasoning whether or not she should choose to use birth control, especially if her health, finances, etc. are not being taken into account.

 

[Warrior1979]

Similar arguments can be made for other actions involving pleasure. Example: We don’t eat twinkies for survival; we eat them solely because they taste good. Just as pleasure drives sex, something tasty drives eating. If contraception is banned, why aren’t twinkies.

 

[InspiritCarol]

I’m a woman so I’l help a bit here.

…But from the perspective of a woman, to desire contraception to prevent an “unwanted” pregnancy, does she not de facto facilitate the sexual objectification of herself?

Yes, but it does not seem that way because we (women) have been taught since infancy that we are to desire the “pleasure” of sex as much as any man. Contraception allows us to attain that which is rightfully ours w/o the “worry” of being saddled with unwanted consequences.

…For if she were to limit her sexual activity only to occasions that remain open to life, then she de facto moves in a direction that de-objectifies herself----

Sorry - again, it’s been drilled into our heads since the beginning, that we become “objects” like “broodmares” if we allow an icky man to convince us to have his child. (Not to mention we’re stealing food from starving children in Ethopia when we selfishly allow another mouth in the world.)

…why?----because if the male partner is aware that a human life might be conceived as a result of his actions with the woman, then he must look beyond the woman as an object of gratification, but as a person with whom he must decide he wishes to commit himself with as a partner in rearing a child (or even another one). (And yes, this assumes that most men are not complete deadbeats who go on the lam in the event of a pregnancy.)

I’m afraid that assumes too much since that is how the male role is overwhelmingly portrayed: only “interested in one thing”; not trustworthy; etc…

…I welcome feedback and thoughts. I’ll probably lurk in the thread long enough until it degenerates in to its destiny of a polemic carnival.

 

[InspiritCarol]

Similar arguments can be made for other actions involving pleasure. Example: We don’t eat twinkies for survival; we eat them solely because they taste good. Just as pleasure drives sex, something tasty drives eating. If contraception is banned, why aren’t twinkies.

Twinkies? Ug! How about a decadent piece of chocolate cake.

But actually there is a parallel: we do need to eat to survive; there are some foods that can give us pleasure; we must not eat more than our body needs or it is sin (glutony).

Just so: we need to have sex to procreate; pleasure may be derived from it (nervous throat clearing here); we must not fornicate beyond the bounds God has placed for us. Lust is a nasty demon that has lots of friends that go with him: jealousy; greed; rage; revenge… you name it.

I’m finding as I experience more of the diversity of life that the rules that seem silly to us at the time may have ***profound ***consequences sometimes decades later.

But seriously: there ought to be a law banning Twinkies.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Similar arguments can be made for other actions involving pleasure. Example: We don’t eat twinkies for survival; we eat them solely because they taste good. Just as pleasure drives sex, something tasty drives eating. If contraception is banned, why aren’t twinkies.

My response to that is this: Twinkies DO have value to sustain life. The parallel with sex is that the act has value to create life. Contracepting sex’s potential for life is the same as self-induced vomiting after eating the Twinkie, so as to get the pleasure of eating it but removing the life-sustaining nutrients that it did provide. In both cases, I think contraception and self-induced-vomiting, are sinful.

 

[MarcoPolo]

On the topic of the woman objectifying herself, even if that was the case would it really matter?

You are arguing that it is not sinful to de-humanize oneself?

 

[Warrior1979]

My response to that is this: Twinkies DO have value to sustain life.

They provide calories of course, but not in a manner not found in nature.

The parallel with sex is that the act has value to create life. Contracepting sex’s potential for life is the same as self-induced vomiting after eating the Twinkie, so as to get the pleasure of eating it but removing the life-sustaining nutrients that it did provide. In both cases, I think contraception and self-induced-vomiting, are sinful.

The analogy breaks down here. You’re attempting to argue that sustaining your own life is the same as creating another life.

Also, I’ll bet I could pick out someone who ate twinkies and other junk food for a year out of a lineup before I could pick out someone contracepting for a year.

 

[InspiritCarol]

The analogy breaks down here. You’re attempting to argue that sustaining your own life is the same as creating another life.

One can demonstrate cause and effect parallels w/o saying that they are “the same”. Marco Polo’s analogy is stunningly accurate and does hit a sore spot. It’s saying that an action has transpired that our bodies were designed to do (digestion v. reproduction) wherein all the mechanisms in our physiology are wasted and aborted for the sole pursuit of the attempt at pleasure. There is no comparison between the “pleasure” gained from sex with a purpose and a hope vs. the selfish indulgence of a moment or moments. It’s like comparing a field of beautiful newly opened lillies on a perfect spring day to a poorly produced plastic flower.

The sad thing is it is impossible to transfer this information. It must be learned first-hand. … Still, there’s no harm in trying, is there?

Also, I’ll bet I could pick out someone who ate twinkies and other junk food for a year out of a lineup before I could pick out someone contracepting for a year.

Just because we are not as discerning about spiritual death as we ought to be does not mean that the decay has not set in.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Marco Polo’s analogy is stunningly accurate and does hit a sore spot. It’s saying that an action has transpired that our bodies were designed to do (digestion v. reproduction) wherein all the mechanisms in our physiology are wasted and aborted for the sole pursuit of the attempt at pleasure.

Thank you. That was the gist of what I tried to say awkwardly.

 

[Abu]

MarcoPolo
There are no realistic reasons in favour of contraception, and you have already seen the demolition by InspiritCarol of one failed attempt.

An excellent consideration of the question is by the esteemed Fr Stephen Torraco:

**Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on June 19, 2006 (EWTN): **
“If you want an objective reason as to why contraception is a serious evil and NFP is not only morally justifiable but also praiseworthy, that objective reason is this: with contraception, there is the deliberate rupture of the intimate link between the unitive and procreative meanings of the marital act. With NFP, there is no such rupture. Even in the case in which a couple, using NFP, resorts to the infertile period for marital relations so as to avoid pregnancy (assuming for the sake of argument, for serious reasons) there is no such objective rupture of that link precisely because there is nothing there to contracept. You need to understand that morality is not simply about results. It is also about our actions in and of themselves. The argument to which you refer (the results are the same with NFP and contraception) is purely utilitarian and does not take into consideration the entire human act. Furthermore, as I have pointed out several times, the condoning of contraception quite logically is also the condoning of genital activity with anyone or anything, as well as of in vitro fertilization and cloning. The Church’s teaching on contraception does not at all depend on faith. It is a clear and rational defense of the very essence of civilization.”

The late Fr Torraco was the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC), and answered questions for Mother Angelica’s Eternal Word Television Network].

 

[Alexander_VI]

It should suffice that our most Holy Fathers have condemned it, there is no need to reason it. Whatever has been said by them have been bound and therefore that should be good for everyone, if it is not, then there is no point arguing with them. Reason is only found within the Church once you have accepted the Holy teachings.

 

[InspiritCarol]

It should suffice that our most Holy Fathers have condemned it, there is no need to reason it. Whatever has been said by them have been bound and therefore that should be good for everyone, if it is not, then there is no point arguing with them. Reason is only found within the Church once you have accepted the Holy teachings.

Amen, Brother; but should we not endeavor to help those who require more than the sometimes obtuse and very inaccessible words of our most revered Holy Fathers?

 

[Abu]

InspiritCarol
should we not endeavor to help those who require more than the sometimes obtuse and very inaccessible words of our most revered Holy Fathers?

Indeed.
And it is a mandate from Christ Himself: ““go and teach all nations….teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20).

Blessed John Paul II reiterated this in the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici (on the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World) 1988, which detailed “the ‘Criteria of Ecclesiality’ for Lay Groups” as requiring “The responsibility of professing the Catholic faith, embracing and proclaiming the truth about Christ, the Church and humanity, in obedience to the Church’s Magisterium, as the Church interprets it.” (#30).

 

[Warrior1979]

The sad thing is it is impossible to transfer this information. It must be learned first-hand. … Still, there’s no harm in trying, is there?

I’m one of those people that doesn’t inherently trust others; I prefer to base things on experience. I have tons of experience with various types of diets and the effect on my body (in fact, I got rid of my tachycardia strictly using diet), and plenty of experience with sex/family-related issues. Way back when, I’ve used on condoms, my ex used birth-control pills (for medical reasons), tried to have children naturally, adopted overseas, etc.

I simply state the results of my experiences. Some people simply dismiss those results because it doesn’t coincide with what the Catholic Church’s opinion.