Isn't the Catholic worry over contraception slightly ridiculous?

[meltzerboy]

And why have sex without being open to the possibility of pregnancy? It is in order to use each other for pleasure, is it not?

Judaism takes a somewhat different stance. According to Jewish Law, the first purpose of marriage is loving companionship. While procreation is an important purpose for sex, it is not the only or even primary purpose, as it often is for other mammals. The way you put it is as if each married partner is merely using the other for pleasure rather than also giving the other pleasure. A mutual love can thus be achieved when sex is accompanied by the heart and mind as well as the body. But sex without joy and physical pleasure is forbidden according to Jewish teaching.

 

[beenwashed]

And same as alcohol. Yet small amounts of alcohol do not cause cancer. The chance of you actually developing cancer because you took birth control is EXTREMELY small…basically a non issue. People around here like to pick and choose their science when it backs up their morality. That isn’t how science works.

Where is your science to back this up?

 

[onenow1]

Humanae Vitae,by Pope Paul VI, is a good read if you believe the Catholivc Church, is the Church Jesus founded and is headeed by the Chair of St. Peter. Matt 16: 18.

God Bless
Onenow1

 

[LauraMajestic]

Which is not truly loving.

You are saying to your SO…I love your body but I hate your fertility. You aren’t completely loving of that person. I want pleasure and that is it. Women abuse men just as much and that is still not right. Sex is meant to be procreative. I can’t understand why that is such a hard concept to understand. If you take the procreative aspect out of it, purposely, then you don’t love the person you are with…completely.

Contraception opens the door to pre-marital sex…which leads to STDs, abortions, abandonment and an entire generation of children (multiple generations at this point) who have never known their father.

Abstinence and chastity put an end to this cycle. Men and women automatically respect each other far more when they understand that procreation is always on the table…there is always a possibility that it can occur. If you say no to this…what happens when you do get pregnant? Sex equals procreation. Contraception can fail.

Sex isn’t only good for making children. It’s good for pleasure too: for both partners at the same time. So I think you are exaggerating the procreative element slightly to fit the Catholic doctrine. (Not that there is anything wrong with that).

Also people are going to do pre-marital sex these days no matter what. I know I have and contraception stopped me getting pregnant and condoms helped prevent STIs (although I didn’t need to worry about that as I only have sex with long term partners and I demand a sex testing before any intimacy).

I agree that Abstinence is a good way to avoid pregnancy and STIs! In fact it’s the best way and I can’t really argue with that. However, it’s also very unrealistic for many and I wouldn’t be able to only have sex for procreation (bar family planning). And I’m incredibly conservative iand have a low sex drive in this regard compared to many peers.

And If certain Catholics have sex even if they don’t believe in it because they cant help themselves can’t you see the benefit of contraception? Or would you rather they weren’t protected, had a higher risk of STI, and would almost certainly get pregnant which happens when you have unprotected sex.

 

[rorydaman]

Both sides are guilty in this regard. Women are as bad as men are.

Birth control means you can’t and won’t accept a pregnancy…even though sex is designed to create life.

It means you only want to use sex for pleasure and you don’t respect your partner to the fullest extent.

I know my husband loves every inch of me…because he isn’t afraid of me getting pregnant…however many times that may happen. Our sex is always guided towards procreation and we abstain to avoid a pregnancy…but still understand and accept that it’s always a possibility…regardless of what happens.

He isn’t saying to me…“I want your body…but I don’t want your fertility…I can’t accept your fertility because insert excuse line here. But I still want to feel pleasure.”

You could make the same argument about NFP. That if you use NFP you can’t and won’t accept pregnancy. And, according to many people on these forums, NFP is actually better at preventing pregnancy than birth control…so people using birth control are actually MORE open to life than people using NFP.

And what about after menopause? If you have sex with your wife after menopause you are just doing it for pleasure. There is absolutely no chance of you getting pregnant.

 

[rorydaman]

Where is your science to back this up?

cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/19/10/2496.short

“Results: During 1,246,967 person-years of follow-up, 1,344 cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed. Past use of any oral contraceptive was not related to breast cancer risk [multivariate relative risk (RR), 1.12; 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.33]. Current use of any oral contraceptive was related to a marginally significant higher risk (multivariate RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.73). One specific formulation substantially accounted for the excess risk: the RR for current use of triphasic preparations with levonorgestrel as the progestin was 3.05 (95% CI, 2.00-4.66; P < 0.0001).”

About 1 out of 1000 women in this study developed breast cancer and past use of birth control was not related to breast cancer risk. Current use was slightly related but it was one specific birth control that accounted for excess risk.

So if 1 out of every 1000 women in the study got breast cancer, and current use of birth control only accounted for a small increase of risk, how many women out of that 1.25 million could really attribute their breast cancer to birth control? Certainly not very many…and it looks like one specific formula was basically the sole culprit.

And where is your science? Please don’t cite some Catholic website or lifesitenews or something ridiculous.

 

[JimG]

“If it * was so liberating, she asks, why are its supposed beneficiaries, especially women, unhappier than before? Why did the very effects that Pope Paul VI* predicted in his much despised but (in her eyes, prophetic) 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae, come to pass—an increase in infidelity and divorce, the objectification and degradation of women, abandonment of women and children, cohabitation, sexual promiscuity and increased abortion rates?”

Source*

 

[fix]

Sex isn’t only good for making children. It’s good for pleasure too: for both partners at the same time. So I think you are exaggerating the procreative element slightly to fit the Catholic doctrine. (Not that there is anything wrong with that).

Also people are going to do pre-marital sex these days no matter what. I know I have and contraception stopped me getting pregnant and condoms helped prevent STIs (although I didn’t need to worry about that as I only have sex with long term partners and I demand a sex testing before any intimacy).

I agree that Abstinence is a good way to avoid pregnancy and STIs! In fact it’s the best way and I can’t really argue with that. However, it’s also very unrealistic for many and I wouldn’t be able to only have sex for procreation (bar family planning). And I’m incredibly conservative iand have a low sex drive in this regard compared to many peers.

And If certain Catholics have sex even if they don’t believe in it because they cant help themselves can’t you see the benefit of contraception? Or would you rather they weren’t protected, had a higher risk of STI, and would almost certainly get pregnant which happens when you have unprotected sex.

Is this your atheistic doctrine?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/19/10/2496.short

“Results: During 1,246,967 person-years of follow-up, 1,344 cases of invasive breast cancer were diagnosed. Past use of any oral contraceptive was not related to breast cancer risk [multivariate relative risk (RR), 1.12; 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.33]. Current use of any oral contraceptive was related to a marginally significant higher risk (multivariate RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03-1.73). One specific formulation substantially accounted for the excess risk: the RR for current use of triphasic preparations with levonorgestrel as the progestin was 3.05 (95% CI, 2.00-4.66; P < 0.0001).”

About 1 out of 1000 women in this study developed breast cancer and past use of birth control was not related to breast cancer risk. Current use was slightly related but it was one specific birth control that accounted for excess risk.

So if 1 out of every 1000 women in the study got breast cancer, and current use of birth control only accounted for a small increase of risk, how many women out of that 1.25 million could really attribute their breast cancer to birth control? Certainly not very many…and it looks like one specific formula was basically the sole culprit.

And where is your science? Please don’t cite some Catholic website or lifesitenews or something ridiculous.

You forgot to include the conclusion portion of your citation. I’ve presented it below for you.

Conclusions: Current use of oral contraceptives carries an excess risk of breast cancer. Levonorgestrel used in triphasic preparations may account for much of this elevation in risk.

 

[Sarcelle]

Are you claiming that because I’m Atheist I automatically can’t understand Christian Dogma.

Because if you are that’s a terrible and hilariously bad argument.

Actually it is not your atheism but your words in the opening post that tells us that you don’t understand the Church’s teaching on contraception.

 

[LauraMajestic]

Is this your atheistic doctrine?

There is no such thing as an atheistic doctrine because all atheism means in ‘a-theism’: no religion.

It is possibly my left wing, feminist and socialist influences though.

 

[fix]

There is no such thing as an atheistic doctrine because all atheism means in ‘a-theism’: no religion.

It is possibly my left wing, feminist and socialist influences though.

It is a doctrine regardless of your nomenclature.

 

[rorydaman]

You forgot to include the conclusion portion of your citation. I’ve presented it below for you.

Conclusions: Current use of oral contraceptives carries an excess risk of breast cancer. Levonorgestrel used in triphasic preparations may account for much of this elevation in risk.

An excess risk of breast cancer…although EXTREMELY LOW and likely caused by one specific birth control.

 

[Kelfa28]

You could make the same argument about NFP. That if you use NFP you can’t and won’t accept pregnancy. And, according to many people on these forums, NFP is actually better at preventing pregnancy than birth control…so people using birth control are actually MORE open to life than people using NFP.

And what about after menopause? If you have sex with your wife after menopause you are just doing it for pleasure. There is absolutely no chance of you getting pregnant.

You are open to life…regardless of the circumstances of the sex. That is a fact. People will say they are going to use contraception until menopause and then not worry about kids anymore. If you never use birth control and know you will always accept children…regardless of your physical state…then the sex you have is both for pleasure and is open to life. Catholic doctrine doesn’t say we have to stop having sex during pregnancy or menopause…but we can never say no to God. Using contraception is saying no to God.

Have you ever used NFP within marriage? It’s not the same as using contraception. When you use contraception…you take a pill, get a shot, have a device inserted or just get rid of the functionality of your reproductive organs entirely and then you have sex. There is no discussion and there is no accountability. When you use NFP…every month you are having an open discussion about having sex and whether or not you can have a child.

Some months are really difficult to abstain. Some months I go through my fertile period and want nothing more then to make love to my husband…and he feels the same way. We need to sit down and talk about it. We don’t just have sex because we can. The topic of fertility is always present.

When I used contraception I took sexual relations for granted because my fertility was “gone” and it was not something I had to worry about. Now…I know when I am fertile and I know when I can get pregnant. My sexual drive increases and I want my husband and he wants me. It’s the way nature works and we are trying to be chaste against nature. That makes it much harder…and I know we aren’t practicing NFP perfectly. I know the rules as does he. We break at least one rule every month that could result in a pregnancy.

 

[Kelfa28]

Sex isn’t only good for making children. It’s good for pleasure too: for both partners at the same time. So I think you are exaggerating the procreative element slightly to fit the Catholic doctrine. (Not that there is anything wrong with that).

Also people are going to do pre-marital sex these days no matter what. I know I have and contraception stopped me getting pregnant and condoms helped prevent STIs (although I didn’t need to worry about that as I only have sex with long term partners and I demand a sex testing before any intimacy).

I agree that Abstinence is a good way to avoid pregnancy and STIs! In fact it’s the best way and I can’t really argue with that. However, it’s also very unrealistic for many and I wouldn’t be able to only have sex for procreation (bar family planning). And I’m incredibly conservative iand have a low sex drive in this regard compared to many peers.

And If certain Catholics have sex even if they don’t believe in it because they cant help themselves can’t you see the benefit of contraception? Or would you rather they weren’t protected, had a higher risk of STI, and would almost certainly get pregnant which happens when you have unprotected sex.

I don’t think I’m exaggerating the Catholic doctrine. Sex is unitive and open to life. Unitive is the pleasurable aspect of it. Open to life is where babies come from. You must incorporate both. End of story.

If you agree with abstinence and that chastity is a good thing…then why berate Catholics for being so anti-contraception? That makes absolutely no sense.

It’s not unrealistic. People just have no sense of self-worth and self-control if they think that it is unrealistic to remain chaste. What happens if a spouse is married and incapable of having intercourse anymore? It can happen to anyone. Does it make it okay for infidelity or divorce to happen…because we cannot control our sex drives?

Why argue that contraception is so wonderful…when it’s not 100% effective? Why take the risk with someone you aren’t married to? Why berate Catholics for having the doctrine that we have?

Human beings are not mindless…sex-obsessed individuals. We are far more developed and intelligent then that. I think it’s a beautiful thing when someone insists on waiting until Marriage to have sex. I think it’s an even more beautiful thing to be constantly open to life because that is what sex is designed to be…both pleasurable and designed to create life.

That shows me that the husband and wife truly love each other and want to be with only each other and no one else. They don’t just “want to have sex” but they want to create another human being as well.

 

[LauraMajestic]

I don’t think I’m exaggerating the Catholic doctrine. Sex is unitive and open to life. Unitive is the pleasurable aspect of it. Open to life is where babies come from. You must incorporate both. End of story.

If you agree with abstinence and that chastity is a good thing…then why berate Catholics for being so anti-contraception? That makes absolutely no sense.

It’s not unrealistic. People just have no sense of self-worth and self-control if they think that it is unrealistic to remain chaste. What happens if a spouse is married and incapable of having intercourse anymore? It can happen to anyone. Does it make it okay for infidelity or divorce to happen…because we cannot control our sex drives?

Why argue that contraception is so wonderful…when it’s not 100% effective? Why take the risk with someone you aren’t married to? Why berate Catholics for having the doctrine that we have?

Human beings are not mindless…sex-obsessed individuals. We are far more developed and intelligent then that. I think it’s a beautiful thing when someone insists on waiting until Marriage to have sex. I think it’s an even more beautiful thing to be constantly open to life because that is what sex is designed to be…both pleasurable and designed to create life.

That shows me that the husband and wife truly love each other and want to be with only each other and no one else. They don’t just “want to have sex” but they want to create another human being as well.

I agree that sex is unitive but that clearly isn’t the only pleasurable part of it. I think an orgasm is pretty pleasurable. And you cannot deny that most people feel a special connection with orgasms. Also, I don’t see why you NEED to allow babies to be born incorporated into sex. I’ve used contraception and can assure you that you don’t need to.

I don’t agree with abstinence. I think abstinence is abnormal. I think that you shouldn’t have sex with anyone you don’t have an emotional connection with.

It may not be unrealistic for some but it clearly is for others, even Catholics. Contraception does not do any real harm. Ok, you can argue the Pill. But for Condoms I don’t see any danger at all apart from the fact people have too much trust in them. Your example with the spouse is not a fair example. If my husband became paralysed of course I wouldn’t leave him. He has no choice in the matter. But if a man can have sex and turns me down because the Church tells him contraception is wrong then he is putting his blind faith in the church over me as a person he is supposed to be connected with.

I’m not saying contraception is 100% effective. I am well aware of the dangers and that’s why I’m not promiscuous. I am simply saying that because contraception, such as condoms, literally does no harm then it is slightly mad to condemn it.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

But if a man can have sex and turns me down because the Church tells him contraception is wrong then he is putting his blind faith in the church over me as a person he is supposed to be connected with.

I’m not saying contraception is 100% effective. I am well aware of the dangers and that’s why I’m not promiscuous. I am simply saying that because contraception, such as condoms, literally does no harm then it is slightly mad to condemn it.

The Church matters more than you. You literally just said that a man should have faith in YOU. Matthew 6:24 You cannot serve two masters, for either you will hate the one and love the other, or else you will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon.

You are making yourself an idol when you say “he is putting his blind faith in the church over me as a person”. That’s right, you’d rather have blind faith in a human being, rather than the Son of God.

Go and call us mad. We are servants of Jesus Christ. The Doctrines of Jesus Christ and His Holy Church matter more than anything you have to say. The Church is not a democracy. The dictates of man should fall in subservience to the dictates of our Lord Jesus Christ. Condoms are harmful, they are harmful to your immortal soul. And know this: whenever you want to turn from your sin, Jesus Christ will be waiting for you with outstretched arms. He will rejoice on that day.

Before Jehovah’s Awesome Throne, Ye Nations Bow in Sacred Joy

 

[LauraMajestic]

The Church matters more than you. You literally just said that a man should have faith in YOU. Matthew 6:24 You cannot serve two masters, for either you will hate the one and love the other, or else you will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon.

You are making yourself an idol when you say “he is putting his blind faith in the church over me as a person”. That’s right, you’d rather have blind faith in a human being, rather than the Son of God.

Go and call us mad. We are servants of Jesus Christ. The Doctrines of Jesus Christ and His Holy Church matter more than anything you have to say. The Church is not a democracy. The dictates of man should fall in subservience to the dictates of our Lord Jesus Christ. Condoms are harmful, they are harmful to your immortal soul. And know this: whenever you want to turn from your sin, Jesus Christ will be waiting for you with outstretched arms. He will rejoice on that day.

Before Jehovah’s Awesome Throne, Ye Nations Bow in Sacred Joy

Ok, so do you have any evidence that condoms are harmful to your soul? And by evidence I don’t want a quote from the infallible pope.

 

[Kelfa28]

I agree that sex is unitive but that clearly isn’t the only pleasurable part of it. I think an orgasm is pretty pleasurable. And you cannot deny that most people feel a special connection with orgasms. Also, I don’t see why you NEED to allow babies to be born incorporated into sex. I’ve used contraception and can assure you that you don’t need to.

I don’t agree with abstinence. I think abstinence is abnormal. I think that you shouldn’t have sex with anyone you don’t have an emotional connection with.

It may not be unrealistic for some but it clearly is for others, even Catholics. Contraception does not do any real harm. Ok, you can argue the Pill. But for Condoms I don’t see any danger at all apart from the fact people have too much trust in them. Your example with the spouse is not a fair example. If my husband became paralysed of course I wouldn’t leave him. He has no choice in the matter. But if a man can have sex and turns me down because the Church tells him contraception is wrong then he is putting his blind faith in the church over me as a person he is supposed to be connected with.

I’m not saying contraception is 100% effective. I am well aware of the dangers and that’s why I’m not promiscuous. I am simply saying that because contraception, such as condoms, literally does no harm then it is slightly mad to condemn it.

I never said babies NEED to be incorporated into sex. Not once. You are putting words into my mouth to make an argument for yourself.

All I have said is that the couple be open to life. That is it. I didn’t say that a child needs to be the result for every sexual union. All I said is that the couple has to accept the fact that a child COULD be the result of a sexual union. Regardless of whether it happens or not. It may never happen…but we are called to be OPEN to life.

Why is abstinence abnormal?

It’s called for at times during marriage. After childbirth for example. During pregnancy there can be times when the doctor calls for a end of sexual relations due to it being a health concern for the wife. Are you saying it’s perfectly fine for the man to go view pornography? If so…how is that any different then him going and finding a prostitute or getting a girlfriend on the side if it’s not normal for him to be abstinent.

How is it not fair for me to make the argument of a spouse not being able to have sex anymore if you think that abstinence is not normal?

You don’t understand that the Church comes first. Including within marriage. People can disappoint you but God will never disappoint you. But you wouldn’t understand that if you are an atheist.

Condoms are not acceptable by the Church because you are saying no to a spouse’s fertility. I’ve already stated my argument that you are not totally loving and accepting of a person wholly if you cannot accept your spouse’s fertility.

I believe that having sex before marriage is being promiscuous. But I’ve been trying to be totally objective within my arguments. You have nothing but opinions within your arguments. That is fine but don’t berate the Church if you can’t argue objectively.

 

[mary_bobo]

I think the OP has come to argue and denegrate the Church. Why discuss with her. She has no intention of weighing anything said fairly. Just pray for her.